Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

OLDHAM.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Minister of Labour whether the town of Oldham, with 9,269 workers unemployed out of a total population of 130,000, will be able to take advantage of the loan facilities shortly to be provided by the Government for the establishment of new industries?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I cannot anticipate the proposed legislation. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that the county borough of Oldham already forms part of an area to which Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, has been applied.

DURHAM.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of undertakings established in the Parliamentary Division of Durham and for which financial assistance has been provided by the Commissioner of Special Areas; where such undertakings are established; the amount of money provided; and the number of men, women, young men, and young women provided with employment?

Mr. E. Brown: No application has so far been made to the Commissioner for financial assistance by any persons considering setting up new industrial undertakings in this area. Any such proposal would, however, receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Ritson: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to be fair to his Department, and to inform him that we did get a cemetery from the Commissioner, but will he consider giving us further facilities for a living organisation?

Mr. Brown: I certainly will, if the area is suitable for new enterprises.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North-Eastern Development Board, upon which the Durham Division is represented, are conscious of the need for spreading out the areas?

Mr. Brown: I agree, but I have answered the specific question, that so far no applications have been received.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields over 5o years of age who are unemployed, and the duration of such unemployment?

Mr. Brown: The latest figures of this kind relate to 28th February, 1938. I am having these extracted and will send them to the hon. Member.

Mr. Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plan for finding employment for these persons?

Mr. Brown: We are making a number of varied efforts, and I am happy to say that recent figures show that they are having effect.

IRISH MANUAL WORKERS.

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any records showing the numbers of Irish unskilled manual workers who have been imported into this country from Southern Ireland for building, rearmament, air-raid precautions, or constructional work of all kinds; and whether any restrictions are placed upon their entry, in view of the large numbers of unemployed already in the country?

Mr. E. Brown: The figures relating to the number of persons from Eire entering insured employment in Great Britain, are collected on an industrial basis and do not distinguish between skilled and unskilled occupations. Since 1st July, 1937, the earliest date for which these figures are available, to 30th November, 1938, the number of such persons who obtained employment in the building and public works contracting industries was 11,560 and in the engineering, motor and metal


industries, 1,552. I am unable to say what proportion of these workers have since returned to Eire. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that there is no power to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to impose a condition upon contractors to the Government to employ persons who are unemployed on the very spot?

Mr. Brown: As the House knows, I have no power to do that. What is the custom? Vacancies are notified to the Exchange, and, subject to the fundamental principle of the Exchange work, which is to supply the best men for the jobs available, we always make the utmost effort to give the local men the preference.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that contractors in this country actually advertise in Irish newspapers in Ireland for this labour when they could get the labour on the spot?

Mr. Brown: I have no power to prevent that.

Mr. Paling: Does the right hon. Gentleman see the contracts in order to make sure that they pay trade union rates of wages?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that the Ministry of Labour is always available to do its very best to help those responsible, both on the employers' side and on the trade union side, for collective agreements to maintain the standard of wages.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman take power to compel contractors for Government work to procure their labour from the Employment Exchanges on the Ministry of Labour scale?

Mr. Brown: I have no power to do that.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman take power?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member knows, this is a debatable question which has been raised many times in the past 20 years, in the lifetime of all Govern-

ments, and that from the contractors' point of view there are difficulties in doing it.

WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Labour whether the inquiry regarding additional winter allowances in the Western Isles has yet been completed; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of assessments current on 21st November, 1938, for payment of unemployment allowances in the Western Isles in respect of which an additional allowance under the Unemployment Assistance (Winter Additions) Regulations, 1938, has been made was 567.

Mr. MacMillan: Does that number cover all the applications?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. The answer that I promised the hon. Member is the the probable total live load in the whole area on the Board's register, which is 1,912, and that 567 are getting winter allowances.

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the recent umpire's decision regarding the winter herring season in the Western Isles in relation to unemployed claims?

Mr. Brown: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the relevant decision, the effect of which is that the period of winter fishing in the Stornoway district is regarded by the statutory authorities as part of the off season for women fishworkers in the district.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious position in which these people will be placed this winter and in future winters if this decision stands? Is he aware that hundreds of people will be suffering not only from unemployment but from having no possible means of support of any kind, and can he do nothing at all about that?

Mr. Brown: I could not accept the last part of the hon. Member's question. As he knows, for some years the seasonal workers' orders have applied to other ports, but the small landing of herring at Stornoway maintains a certain amount of work, and the statutory authorities consider there has been a winter season in the


amending order until recently and have now found that that is not so.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not the present position arise out of the failure of the herring industry, and is not the failure of the Government to help the industry to blame for that?

Mr. Brown: I cannot argue that, and, as a matter of fact, the Act was passed in 1931 by the hon. Member's own party.

BISHOPTON FACTORY, GREENOCK.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, registered at the Greenock Employment Exchange, have received employment at the Bishopton factory during the current year and the previous year, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the unemployed at the Greenock Exchange work that is available at the Bishopton factory in respect that it is necessary for men working at that factory to travel?

Mr. Brown: The Employment Exchanges are always available for the unemployed, and I am happy to say that year by year they are getting more efficient.

HOLIDAY CAMPS.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large additional numbers of persons for whom holidays with pay are now assured, he will take steps to encourage the provision, in various parts of the country, of rural camps, where persons can obtain cheap holiday accommodation; and whether, in this connection, he will cooperate with the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the fact that such camps might have great utility in the event of an emergency?

Mr. E. Brown: Considerable facilities of this kind already exist through various forms of organisation, and it may reasonably be expected that they will be expanded by similar methods in order to meet any further demand. I should welcome such an expansion, though I should make it clear that I have no funds that

could be applied to that purpose. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend may be assured that there will be no lack of co-operation between the Lord Privy Seal and myself.

Sir G. Fox: Will funds be available to the Commissioners for the Special Areas?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will look at the report again, he will see that there is a passage in it about this matter.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no lack of any cooperation, and can he say whether there has been any approach made to the Lord Privy Seal on the subject?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member wants any specific information about that, perhaps he will put a question down.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the general and legislative acceptance of the principle of holidays with pay, he can say when His Majesty's Government will ratify the convention concerning annual holidays with pay for seamen?

Mr. E. Brown: As I stated when introducing the Holidays with Pay Bill on 14th July of this year, the Government, in agreement with the recommendations of the Amulree Committee of Inquiry, propose to await the developments resulting from voluntary negotiations during the next two years before considering what legislation is necessary to make provision for holidays with pay in industry generally. Meanwhile the question of ratification of the Convention referred to must clearly be deferred.

Mr. Hall: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing this country into line with other countries that have adopted the Convention policy on this matter?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. The Amulree Committee was a most important committee, representing both sides in industry as well as impartial persons, and they found that the way recommended in the Convention was not the way for this country.

Mr. Hall: As other countries have ratified this Convention, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied to lag behind those other countries in this respect?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept that suggestion. The House will know that as regards collective agreements and the relations in industry there is no superior to this country in the whole world.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government propose to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that persons who improperly dispose of, or lose, or damage gas masks, which are public property, shall become liable to a penalty?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): This point has not been overlooked: it has been noted for consideration in connection with forthcoming legislation.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the fact that these gas masks were provided at the expense of the taxpayer and that it is well known that damage is being frequently done to them, would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman announced now that he will introduce legislation which will secure that these gas masks are public property and that those who damage them will be punished, and also that he will make that legislation retrospective?

Mr. Gibson: What is the relative cost of gas masks and suitable containers?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot say.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can expedite the payment of grants for air-raid precautions work in regard to which local authorities have already made applications?

Sir J. Anderson: One thousand four hundred and thirty-five claims in respect of the current year have been received, and in 1,390 of these cases a payment of grant on account has already been made. There have also been received recently 292 claims in respect of the period prior to the current financial year. These claims require examination by the auditor, and this examination is being completed as rapidly as possible. Most of the latter claims are for small amounts.

Mr. Stewart: Does that satisfactory answer represent the position in Scotland, where one understands the bulk of the authorities have so far received nothing?

Sir J. Anderson: It seems to be an extraordinary fact that Scotland has been backward in making application. So far as Fife is concerned the applications, both in respect of the current financial year and the last financial year, were received only last month.

Mr. Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his intention to consult with local authorities before formulating complete schemes of evacuation, whether he proposes to meet separately the local authorities of Scotland; and whether, in order to co-ordinate and expedite efforts in air-raid precautions work, he will consider creating a separate office in Scotland which can act for his Department in all matters, including finance?

Sir J. Anderson: Together with the Minister of Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland I have already had a preliminary discussion with the associations of local authorities. Schemes of evacuation in Scotland are being worked out by the Department of Health for Scotland in consultation with the appropriate authorities. As regards the third part of the question an office of the Air-Raid Precautions Department is to be opened in Edinburgh early in the New Year. This office will be in the charge of a responsible administrative officer who will act on behalf of the Department, subject to general supervision from Headquarters on all matters arising on general air-raid precautions in the schemes of local-authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that announcement will give great satisfaction to Scotland?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal the number of public bomb-proof shelters that have been constructed in the United Kingdom, and the approximate number of persons to be accommodated therein, specifying separately the position in respect of the county of London area?

Sir J. Anderson: So far as I am aware, no public shelter which could truthfully be described as bomb-proof has been specially constructed.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Air Raid Precautions Act has been in operation for 12 months, does not the Minister consider this to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in relation to civilian defence?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not been in operation myself for that period. I was asked for the fact, and I have given it.

Mr. Paling: In view of the inadequacy of the trenches and such surface shelters as have been made, and the proof in Spain of the adequacy of deep bombproof shelters, will the right hon. Gentleman give his early attention to their provision in this country?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think I can add anything to what I said yesterday.

Mr. Duncan: In order to relieve the pressure upon the local authorities for public bomb-proof shelters, will my right hon. Friend make one point clear in regard to private shelters, namely, that in every household where there are domestic servants the obligation is on the employer to find proper shelter for his staff?

Sir J. Anderson: I thought I made it clear yesterday that with regard to people in employment and their protection at their places of employment, the responsibility rests primarily on the employers. I did not intend to draw any distinction between one class of employer and another.

Mr. Shinwell: In cases where the private employer refuses to accept responsibility, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?

Sir J. Anderson: I said yesterday that the Government propose to deal with that matter in legislation to be introduced immediately after the Recess. We hope that employers will not wait for such legislation before proceeding to discharge their obligations in this matter.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal the total numbers of persons now enrolled in each of the various air-raid precautions and auxiliary services; and what are the full numbers for each service at which he is aiming in the national voluntary service campaign?

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Air Raid Precautions and related Services.


Service.
Recruited.
Approximate Approved Strength.


1 Air Raid Precautions. Wardens
413,045 men
420,000



96,058 women
100,000


First Aid Services.
120,876 men
140,000



222,190 women
220,000


Rescue and Decontamination Parties.
113,800 men
100,000


Miscellaneous Services.
82,536 men
50,000



51,267 women
30,000


The above figures take no account of reserves to be recruited to a number yet finally determined.


2. Auxiliary Fire Service.
105,000 (approximate).
265,000 men.




50,000 women.


3. Police Reserves (Approximate figure only).
150,000
200,000

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that Mr. Albert Stony, air-raid precautions officer, of the Ipswich Corporation electricity supply and transport departments, was sent by the corporation for anti-gas training at the civilian training centre, Easingwold, and on 26th August last, whilst wearing heavy decontamination clothing in the course of an anti-gas exercise, collapsed and died; that the cause of death was certified to be heart failure attributable to over-exertion; that there survives a widow and two children who were wholly dependent upon the deceased; that adequate compensation has not been paid; and whether any and what action will be taken in this case to give effect to the repeated declarations that adequate compensation will be provided in respect of death or injury to members of public air-raid precautions services undergoing peace-time training?

Sir J. Anderson: I have obtained information about this case. Mr. Stony, while undergoing a course of practical training and exerting himself with great


energy, collapsed and, despite the attention immediately given, failed to rally and died shortly afterwards. Every sympathy must be felt for his family, and in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case I am anxious that, in addition to the grant which has—I understand—already been made by the local authority, there shall also be a suitable grant from the Exchequer. An announcement of the amount will be communicated without delay.

NATIONAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consider issuing to all those who volunteer and are accepted for national service, men and women, including the exempted classes, a small badge or button which might be worn as a badge of distinction by those giving voluntary service to their country?

Sir J. Anderson: The object which my hon. Friend has in mind is, I think, largely met by the badges which are already issued under approved conditions to volunteers in the Air-Raid Precautions services and certain other branches of voluntary national service. I will, however, consider whether there is any call for the extension of this system.

Mr. Day: Are these badges issued free to those who wear them?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost to the public funds in respect of these badges? What is the approximate cost of each badge?

Sir J. Anderson: About IS.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MILK IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state, according to the Board's statistics, the number of elementary schools in England and Wales in which no arrangements have been made for the supplying of milk to the children attending such schools?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): On 31st March, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, out of a total of 29,223 public elementary school departments in England and Wales 1,920 made no arrangements for the supply of milk. This represents 6.6 per cent. of the total number of departments, but the departments making no arrangements were for the most part small and contained less than 3 per cent. of the total number of public elementary school children.

Mr. Day: Are any steps being taken to see whether it is possible to supply milk to children in these schools?

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the figure is getting steadily less.

HOLIDAY CAMPS.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any action has yet been taken under the Physical Fitness Act to build and equip holiday camps for young persons; and whether, in view of the useful purpose which such camps might serve in an emergency, he can arrange to expedite their development if necessary in conjunction with the Lord Privy Seal's Department?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board's powers under the Physical Training and Recreation Act to make grants in aid of the building and equipment of holiday camps extend only to projects put forward by local authorities and local voluntary organisations. A number of applications for grants under the Act have been received and, except in a few cases, offers of grant have been made. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen references in the Press to a scheme of holiday camps now under consideration by the local committee for London and Middlesex, and the National Fitness Council is actively considering the question of holiday camp provision in consultation with certain national bodies. My hon. Friend can be assured that in this matter there will be no lack of cooperation between the Lord Privy Seal and my Noble Friend.

SECONDARY AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

Major Whiteley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when the Consultative Committee's


report on Secondary and Junior Technical Education will be published?

Mr. Lindsay: The report of the Consultative Committee will be published on Friday, 30th December.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the number of applications received by the respective physical training committees in England and Wales for grants in respect of social centres since the physical training committees, appointed under the Act of 1937 were constituted; how such applications were dealt with; and the number and amount of the grants actually paid or passed for payment?

Mr. Lindsay: I am unable to state the number of applications for grant towards the provision or development of social centres received by the local committees under the Physical Training and Recreation Act. Up to the present 62 such applications have been transmitted by the local committees and of these 42 have been considered in the usual way by the Grants Committee and the Board of Education. In the case of 30 applications offers of grant have been made to a total of £275,735.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that it is considered that too little is being done in this respect? Is nothing being done by his Department to increase the value of what is obtainable under this Act?

Mr. Lindsay: I should have thought that the figure I quoted of nearly £300,000 as having been offered in respect of these centres, which include youth centres and recreational centres of all kinds, is a substantial thing in one year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

COW-SHEDS.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Health whether be is prepared to authorise a survey of all farm buildings at present in use as cow-sheds for producing milk for human consumption, with a view to scheduling for the necessary reconstruction in a reasonable period of time such premises as may be found unsuitable?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): No authorisation by me of such a survey as is suggested by the hon. Member is required. The enforcement of the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Orders in relation to farm buildings is a matter for the appropriate local sanitary authorities.

Mr. Morgan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 22,000 farmers out of 120,000 have been able to get up to the standard laid down by the Milk Board for their accredited scheme, and that the board are now satisfied that farm premises are responsible for this?

Mr. Elliot: It is for the local sanitary authorities to enforce the regulations.

Mr. Morgan: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the local authorities to the necessity of improving the national milk supply in this respect?

Mr. Elliot: Local authorities have certain duties entrusted to them by Parliament, and they are a little jealous of inroads on their duties and privileges by the central authority.

Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman no responsibility if he finds that local authorities are not carrying out their duties?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, but that is a general responsibility.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a serious matter in view of the extraordinary steps the Minister of Agriculture is taking by premium payments to get a good milk supply, at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, it is important, and so are a great many other steps.

INFANT MORTALITY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health the infantile mortality rates for Durham and Northumberland and the averages for that of England and Wales from 1932 and up to the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer includes a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Infant Mortality (Deaths of Children 1 year of age per 1,000 live births).


—
England and Wales
Durham Administrative Country.
Northumberland Administrative County.


1932
65
82
67


1933
64
80
71


1934
59
78
70


1935
57
70
71


1936
59
71
70


1937
58
71
66

FOOD TESTS.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health the nature of the food-testing now being undertaken by the National Food Test Board on behalf of his Department?

Mr. Elliot: I have no information as to the nature of the food-testing undertaken by this body. It is entirely unofficial and any tests which it may be making are certainly not undertaken on behalf of my Department.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this board is carried on from an accommodation address in Holborn and that it is issuing circulars which appear to be almost of a blackmailing nature, and in the interests of the general community and the health of the community will he make further inquiries into its activities, which appear to be most undesirable?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think it comes within my province to make further inquiries. It is an entirely unofficial body, and it is for others to take such steps.

PARK PREWETT MENTAL HOSPITAL.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that two Commissioners of the Board of Control who visited Park Prewett mental hospital in July, 1937, made an entry in the visitors' book to the effect that they had been disappointed at the progress made in occupational therapy and that little appeared to be done for those patients who were in need of occupational treatment; whether he is satisfied that the defect referred to in this entry either had not existed or has now been remedied; and how often and on what dates has Park Prewett hospital been inspected since the date when this complaint was made?

Mr. Elliot: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Two Commissioners of the Board of Control visited the hospital again on 14th October of the present year and reported that, since the previous visit, a welcome advance had been made in the development of occupational therapy, though there were certain directions in which they suggested the possibility of further advance.

MILK SUPPLIES, LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL,

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health what are the terms on which the London County Council has arranged to obtain its milk supplies direct from the Milk Marketing Board; and why the contracts were not put out to tender?

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Health under what conditions the London County Council has arranged to obtain its milk supplies direct from the Milk Marketing Board; and whether he is satisfied with the reason why these contracts have not been put out to tender in the normal way?

Mr. Elliot: I understand that the procedure adopted was in accordance with the Standing Orders of the London County Council. I am in communication with the council and will inform my hon. Friends of the result in due course.

Mr. Day: Is it not a fact that this authority has one of the finest purchasing organisations of the whole of the United Kingdom and cannot it be relied upon to carry out its duties properly?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is desirable that such local authorities should undertake organised under-cutting?

Mr. J. Morgan: Is it not a fact that the London County Council are buying 10,000 gallons of this milk per day, and that the medical officer of health has informed the authority that they are now getting better milk than ever before?

Mr. Elliot: Now the hon. Member is asking me not to interfere with a local authority, which is in direct contrast with the suggestion he was making in a previous question.

HOUSING.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give a list of the names of the local authorities which have


built houses by direct labour under the Housing Acts from 1st October, 1935, to date; and the number of houses so built in each case?

Mr. Elliot: I am sending the hon. Member the detailed information for which he has asked.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (WEST RIDING).

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief and the amount of rates levied for public assistance purposes by the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council in each year since 1931; and what amount of the rates so levied has been to assist injured workmen in receipt of workmen's compensation and old age pensioners in the same years, giving the number of persons so affected in each year?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Year
Number of persons in receipt of poor relief in the York West Riding Administrative County on the last Saturday in November in the undermentioned years. (The figures include dependants but exclude rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals.


1931
44,781


1932
51,390


1933
51,124


1934
61,147


1935
62,785


1936
56,128


1937
49,939


1938
49,591

The following figures show the revenue expenditure on poor relief falling to be met out of rates and the Block Grants under the Local Government Act, 1929, and the equivalent of that expenditure expressed as a rate in the pound. Since 1st April, 1930, it has not been possible to state to what extent the cost of any particular service has fallen on rates, inasmuch as the Block Grants are applicable to local government expenses generally and cannot be apportioned to individual services.

Year ending 31st March.
Revenue Expenditure on Poor Relief falling to be met out of rates and the Block Grants.


Amount
Equivalent rate in the pound.




£
s.
d.


1931
…
1,024,819
3
2·5


1932
…
1,086,996
3
4·5


1933
…
1,172,675
3
7·6


1934
…
1,184,504
3
8·1


1935
…
1,281,135
3
10·8


1936
…
1,321,321
3
10·8


1937
…
1,351,777
3
11·1


1938
…
1,397,056
4
2·3

The other particulars asked for are not available in my Department.

PRISONERS (INSANITY).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of male and female prisoners who were certified as insane after their conviction and reception into prison for the three years ended the last convenient date?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to get these persons certified before their conviction?

Sir. S. Hoare: That is another question.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of convicted, debtor and surety prisoners certified insane during the three years ended 31st December, 1935, 1936 and 1937 were as follow:




Men.
Women.


1935
…
90
11


1936
…
66
9


1937
…
117
14


Totals
…
273
34

SCAFFOLD ACCIDENT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the lift accident at the Midland Bank, Poultry, E.C., on Wednesday, 14th December, when two men were badly hurt when scaffolding and steel girders 25 feet long fell; and what protection is provided for the passers-by when girders are being hoisted?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that no girders were being hoisted, but that a steel gantry, which had been used for some building operations, was being dismantled, and that owing to some misunderstanding too many of the nuts securing part of the framework were removed, with the result that the framework fell and injured three workmen and two members of the public. The precautions required by the regulations for building operations, though primarily for the protection of the workpeople, would incidentally protect the public against such accidents as falls of cranes or girders, but there does not appear to have been any breach of the regulations in this instance.

NON-INFLAMMABLE FILMS (INQUIRY).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether the inquiry which is being held by the Cinematograph Advisory Committee into the question of noninflammable films will deal with the possibility of imposing any form of political censorship or control officially or un-officially?

Sir S. Hoare: I should regard any form of censorship exercised for political purposes as out of the question. The point for consideration by the Advisory Committee is whether slow burning films

should be differentiated from other films in respect of the control exercised by local authorities, and this necessarily involves the question whether there should be differentiation as regards the control exercised both for safety purposes and for the prevention of offensive exhibitions.

Mr. Mander: Is there any question of bringing these films under the British Board of Film Censors? Is that one of the matters to be considered?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member will see from the answer that that is one of the questions which this Committee is considering.

LIFT ACCIDENT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at a flat in Lowndes Street, S.W., where a boy was killed; and was the lift in proper condition?

Sir S. Hoare: This lift is not subject to the Factory Acts and the accident was not investigated by my Department. I understand, however, that this unfortunate boy, who was only four years old, went ahead of his nurse and attempted to operate the lift by himself; and that the coroner said he was satisfied that the lift was in proper condition and fool-proof so far as such lifts can be for adults. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy for the boy's parents.

Mr. Thorne: Does the Home Secretary think there is a possibility of private lifts coming under the supervision of local authorities for examination and control?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the London County Council are considering that question with a view to possible legislation.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the Motion on increase in old age pensions, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh and other hon. Members; and whether he will consider granting a day of parliamentary time for its discussion when the House reassembles after Christmas and to allow


the issue to be decided by a free vote of the House?

[That this House requests the Government to increase the weekly amount paid to old age pensioners to £1 a week and to make provision for this when the next Budget is introduced.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that I can hold out no hope of a special opportunity being afforded to discuss the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member. I would, however, remind him that facilities already exist for discussion of Private Members' Motions under the Standing Orders.

Mr. Tinker: We all know the burden which the Prime Minister has to carry, but does he realise the gravity of this situation? The latest figure I have is that 230,000 old age pensioners have to apply for relief. In view of that, could I ask him to reconsider the answer which he has given?

The Prime Minister: I cannot argue the matter now. The question I was asked was whether I could find time for the consideration of this Motion and my answer, I regret to say, is in the negative.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman visualise the difficulties of these people on 10s. a week in the terrible cold which we have been experiencing?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the Prime Minister seen the undertaking given at the National Labour Group Conference held a few weeks ago, and have representations arising out of that been made to the Prime Minister by members of that body?

The Prime Minister: That is another question.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter when we resume our business in January.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolution passed by the city council of Stoke-on-Trent, and forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, asking the Government to introduce legislation to provide that, if the wife of an insured worker is junior in age to her husband, her pension shall become payable as soon as her husband becomes entitled to his pension; and what action does he propose to take?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 13th of this month to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

Mr. Smith: Are there any prospects of anything being done for old age pensioners?

Sir J. Simon: I am afraid I cannot go into that point in answer to the question which I was asked.

HOME OFFICE (ALIENS SECTION STAFF).

Sir G. Fox: asked the Home Secretary what is the present staff of the aliens section of his Department; how this compares with the staff employed in the same section at a similar date last year; what is the approximate number of aliens cases now in hand; and whether he is satisfied that the staff is now sufficient to deal with these cases with reasonable expedition?

Sir S. Hoare: The present staff of the aliens division numbers 141. This represents an increase of 55 as compared with December, 1937. The number of cases which are in hand at any one moment cannot be precisely stated as the communications and requests with which the division has to deal relate not only to the admission of particular individuals but to numerous other questions arising out of the position of aliens already in this country. The large additions of staff made in recent weeks have greatly ameliorated the position and, as I have already stated in reply to previous questions, the staff is being expanded as rapidly as the necessity for teaching newcomers their duties permits.

Miss Rathbone: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether some acceleration could not be produced by giving rather more authority to our consular representatives abroad, so as to prevent the terrible delays in the granting of visas, a difficulty which we recognise that they cannot very quickly overcome with their present staffs?

Sir S. Hoare: I will look into that point, but it appears to be one which should be raised with the Foreign Office.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered assisting the staffs of those voluntary bodies which are now offering so much useful help to his Department?

Sir S. Hoare: That, obviously, is another question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we are in the closest cooperation with the two bodies, and I will keep in mind his suggestion.

COAL MINER'S DEATH.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Medical Board under the various industries, silicosis, scheme, have refused a certificate that death was caused by silicosis in the case of the late Mr. Rees Roberts, Raven Colliery, Garnant; whether, in view of the fact that the deceased had worked for 59 years at coal mines in the anthracite coalfield and had been certified partially disabled by silicosis since 1937, he can state the reasons for the refusal to certify silicosis as the cause of death; and whether the Medical Board were satisfied that death was not accelerated by silicosis?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I understand that the post-mortem examination showed extensive cardiovascular disease and only slight silicosis, and that the board were satisfied that the silicosis could not be held to have accelerated death. The workman was 66 years old and was found last year to be suffering from silicosis in an early stage such as to cause only slight disability, but to be totally disabled owing to other physical conditions.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the report of the inquest which appeared in the South Wales newspapers it was stated that the doctors present at the post-mortem examination, who included a medical representative of the colliery company, agreed that the death was caused by silicosis; and may I ask whether the Medical Board is permitted under the regulations to certify that death is accelerated by silicosis and whether a claim would rest in such a case?

Mr. Lloyd: The board can take the view that death is accelerated by silicosis, and in a case of that kind they would

bear that fact very much in mind, but in this case they came very definitely to the conclusion that death was due to heart disease and arterio-sclerosis was not accelerated by silicosis.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask whether it is not possible under the general provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts to claim compensation even though death be not caused by an accident but is accelerated by it; whether the Medical Board can certify that though death was not caused by silicosis it was accelerated by it; and, if the board have such powers whether the hon. Gentleman will take such steps to alter the certificate so that the board can certify that death was accelerated by silicosis and thus make possible a claim for compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: I should not like to make a considered statement on that point to-day, but I will look into it.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I will.

GERMAN WORKERS' FRONT (ENGLISH BRANCH).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the existence in England of a branch of the German Workers' Front extensively organised and compelling every German subject in this country to belong to it; and whether he will take steps to deport the persons responsible for this system which is contrary to the interests of this country?

Sir S. Hoare: I am aware that there is a branch of this organisation in this country. There can be, of course, no question that German nationals have under our laws complete freedom of choice in this matter and the use of intimidation with a view to compelling them to join against their will would be a punishable offence. If in any case there were evidence that intimidation had been used, appropriate action would be taken.

Mr. Mander: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of these German nationals feel afraid not to belong to this organisation because of what might happen to their relatives in Germany, and will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider closing down the whole organisation?

Sir S. Hoare: That is another question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in any case brought to my attention in which intimidation has been proved appropriate action will at once be taken.

Sir G. Fox: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the national interest that German servants employed in this country should be compelled to go to this organisation and to give information of what they have heard in the houses where they are employed?

Sir S. Hoare: That is also another question, but I should certainly disapprove of any action of that kind.

Mr. Stephen: Would the right hon. Gentleman take action if it were a case of a Russian Bolshevik workers' front?

Sir S. Hoare: I should take action if the law were broken, no matter by whom.

Mr. Mander: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the law is broken and action is taken by his Department, the effect on the persons' relatives in Germany may, none the less, be very serious indeed? That is the real difficulty.

Sir S. Hoare: Much as I should deplore a situation of that kind, it is obviously one for which I am not responsible.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Home Secretary the total amount paid for full, partial, and fatal accident compensation, respectively, in the county of York under the Workmen's Compensation Act, showing the amounts paid in the respective trades during the last five years?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on Tuesday last to the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) when it was explained that such figures are not available for particular counties.

Mr. Dunn: Are the figures available for the whole country? If so, and I put a question down, will the right hon. Gentleman reply?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly. If they are available I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures for which he asks.

GERMAN FIRMS (JEWISH EMPLOYES, DISMISSAL).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of Schenkers, Limited, of 134, Queen Victoria Street, in dismissing certain employés on account of their Jewish faith; and what action he proposes to take to discourage German firms in this country from discriminating amongst their staffs on racial or religious grounds?

Sir S. Hoare: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing the particulars of this case to my notice. I am causing immediate inquiry to be made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a useful purpose would be served if British firms and British customers who have relations with German firms were to convey to them an expression of their disapproval of such dismissals as being quite contrary to the spirit of religious toleration in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: I am sure that any reputable British firm would highly disapprove of any action of that kind, and the more that fact can be known, certainly from my point of view the better.

REFUGEES.

Mr. Lathan: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the delays consequent on the existing arrangements for the immigration of adults from Germany, he will institute an inquiry into the possibility of organising closed areas, similar to Ellis Island in the United States, to which refugees might have recourse, pending any appeals as to their claims or any communication with their friends in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: Such examination as I have been able to make of the practical working of the arrangements for the admission of selected refugees to this country does not suggest that anything would be gained by instituting such a system as the hon. Member suggests. The system by which a German seeking admission to this country must first obtain a visa from


a British Consulate was instituted in order to avoid the difficulties which would inevitably arise if persons were to arrive at our ports before the question whether they could be admitted under the arrangements for refugees had been considered; and I should deprecate any arrangement which would encourage people to come to a United Kingdom port on the chance of securing admission and which would involve detaining them under some form of custody while their applications are being considered, and ultimately sending back those whose applications could not be accepted.

Mr. Paling: Did not the Home Secretary promise some time ago to look into the matter with a view to expediting it? In view of the fact that there are tremendously long delays before people get over here, can we have an assurance that the position is likely to be better in the next few weeks so that people can get away in a reasonably short time?

Sir S. Hoare: Perhaps the hon. Member did not hear the reply which I gave on this subject a few minutes ago.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the matter with a view to seeing whether some arrangement could be made equivalent, perhaps, to Ellis Island, but limited by granting some sort of temporary permission from Germany? Is he aware that hundreds of refugees have finally been compelled to commit suicide?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet prepared plans for the settlement of refugees in Tanganyika?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The Government of Tanganyika have ordered surveys to be carried out of the areas which offer the best possibility of settlement, and I am awaiting the results of those surveys. It will necessarily be some little time before the reports are received. As soon as those reports are available, the voluntary refugee organisations will be invited to send representatives to inspect any areas which the Governor may suggest for examination.

Mr. R. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it would

be advisable that no refugees from Germany should be settled in Tanganyika?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another matter altogether.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to seek the assent of this House to the Czechoslovak loan; and whether there is any recent precedent for such pledging of public money on the private assurances of Ministers?

Sir J. Simon: I am sorry that it has not been possible to introduce this legislation before Christmas as I had hoped. I propose to introduce it as soon as possible after the Recess. I cannot, of course, accept the implication contained in the second part of the question. The only assurance given by Ministers, which was immediately communicated to the House, was that legislation would be introduced.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that the House has given its assent in any form to this legislation?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir, I think the object of legislation being introduced is in order to get the assent of the House.

Mr. Benn: In that case, why does the right hon. Gentleman boggle at the phrase "private assurances of Ministers"? Is there anything behind all this?

Sir J. Simon: I understand a private assurance to be an assurance given in private. This was an assurance given here publicly.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have never received an assurance, and, furthermore, that we have no knowledge of how the money is being spent? Has he any such knowledge?

Sir J. Simon: Those are two quite distinct questions. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no knowledge of the assurances given I would point out that it has been stated in the House what the assurance was, and that there has been no other assurance. As regards the way in which the money has been spent, I think a statement has already been


made, and when we introduce legislation we shall certainly try to make that matter clear.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Was not a statement made in connection with the Prime Minister's policy after Munich?

Mr. Buchanan: Was not the money loaned out prior to these assurances and should not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to introduce legislation at once in order, from the Parliamentary and public point of view, that an assurance might be given that Parliament would have some say as to how the money was to be spent? What is now happening is that money is being spent without Parliament having given approval in the matter?

Sir J. Simon: I think that I have told the House before that it was certainly hoped to introduce the legislation more promptly. I certainly should much prefer it. I have also stated that our difficulty was that we had had negotiations with the other countries concerned—I mentioned three countries—and that it has taken longer to arrange the question of the guarantee of the loan than we expected.

Mr. Buchanan: Will not all the money be spent by the time you introduce the Bill?

Mr. Benn: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for pressing him further, but I must point out that we are not talking about the £30,000,000, but about the £10,000,000. Nobody knows whether it is a grant or a loan, and nobody knows how it is being spent. Many people suspect that it is being spent under German direction. We should like some particulars from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has authorised the expenditure.

Sir J. Simon: No one could be more anxious to remove this suspicion than I, and that is the reason why I want the legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: If the House does not pass the legislation, will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government have to find the money from their own pockets?

Sir J. Simon: I should have to throw myself on the House.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the gross amount derived for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date from advertisements in Government publications?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): The gross amount derived from advertisements in Government publications during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1938, was £235,101.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether any restrictions are to be included in the contracts for these advertisements?

Captain Wallace: Not, I am afraid, before 1st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MALTING BARLEY.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasing profits made by the brewers and distillers, such buyers of malting barley will now be required to pay a guaranteed price which would cover the cost of production of British malting barley?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The Barley Conference to which I referred in my statement of 9th December has been invited to consider what measures might be adopted to prevent a recurrence of the price situation that has developed this season. The hon. Member will, I am sure, recognise that it would be undesirable that I should in any way prejudge the outcome of their deliberations by expressing an opinion upon any particular proposal such as that which he suggests.

Mr. Roberts: Will this be one of the proposals that will be before the conference?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; a very similar proposal will be before the conference.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the larger consumption of barley help the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

TURKEYS (PRICES).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the current prices


being obtained for British, Irish and foreign turkeys, respectively; and how these prices compare with those obtained at a similar period in 1937 and 1936, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply comprises a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the imported birds, when they are sold, are suitable for their purpose?

Mr. Morrison: Any question as to the hygienic qualities of imported birds should be addressed, not to me, but to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the Minister aware that there are two factors in the selling price of turkeys—the state of supply and demand and the state of the atmosphere?

Following is the reply:

Statement showing prices of British, Irish and certain foreign turkeys at London in the week ended 21st December this year compared with the prices in the corresponding weeks in 1937 and 1936.

Country of Origin.
Quality.
1938.
1937.
1936.




per
lb
per
lb.
per
lb.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


British
1st
1
6
1
9
1
8



2nd
1
4
1
6
1
6


Northern Irish
1st
1
4
1
5
1
6



2nd
1
1
1
4
1
5


Eire
1st
1
4
1
4
1
5



2nd
1
1
1
2
1
3


Argentine
1st
1
0½
1
2
—



2nd
0
9½
0
11
—


Central European
1st
*1
0½
*1
1
1
0



2nd
0
11½
0
11½
0
9


*Mainly Hungarian.

CHEESE.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the substantial reductions which have taken place in the volume of cheese produced in this country since the inception of the Milk Marketing Scheme, he can state what steps he proposes to take to safeguard this industry from further diminution, and to ensure that all possible steps are taken to increase the proportion of home-produced cheese consumed in this

country, with a view to increasing the total milk production and the number of cows?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not yet able to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st December in regard to the milk industry.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the present serious plight of many engaged in agriculture in this country, he will consider granting to those branches of the industry most affected some immediate financial assistance pending a further review by the Government of the various measures passed to assist the industry, in the light of their success or failure?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards financial assistance to the industry, I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 9th December and to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 15th December last. I would, however, draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the announcement which I made on Tuesday last in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley on the subject of the control of imports of mutton and lamb.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Cannot my right hon. Friend again reconsider this matter, in view of the very problematical effect of the regulations which he has brought before the House in connection with imports of sheep and lamb, and which, in the opinion of many people, will not produce an effect for many months?

Mr. De la Bère: What is it that is arresting progress now? Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread exasperation that exists throughout the country, and of the fact that, if he is still to stand, he cannot stand still?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not the case that the section of the industry that is most affected by its present serious plight is that of the workers in the industry; and will the right hon. Gentleman give some assistance to them?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of all these considerations. With regard to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the


Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), these matters are always under consideration and review, but his question was a definite one directed to a specific point, and I could not be more precise in my answer than I have been in the one I have given.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the severity of the weather we are now experiencing, will the right hon. Gentleman see if anything additional can be done for the workers? Will he consult with the Minister of Labour, and see whether additional allowances cannot be made to the agricultural workers, who in some cases are suffering very acutely at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: That is quite a different question. I hope the hon. Member will put it down.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make as to the agricultural situation?

Mr. Morrison: The Government fully recognise the deep concern that is being felt at the present time about some aspects of the agricultural situation, and share it. They are undertaking a review of the situation and they have before them in that connection the considered views which have been expressed by responsible agricultural bodies, including the statements issued by the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales and the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland. It will be appreciated that in their review the Government are bound to take into account other considerations besides those which are naturally most prominent in the minds of agriculturists, but the urgency and importance of the problem are fully appreciated and the review is being continued throughout the Christmas Recess. At an appropriate stage, which it is hoped will be at an early date, the Government propose to discuss with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland the particular schemes which those organisations have formulated.

LIGHTHOUSES.

Mr. Kelly: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lighthouses which are manned by two men, and the number with three men?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of lighthouses under the management of the three general lighthouse authorities on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland which are manned by two men is 61, and the number manned by three men 105.

Mr. Kelly: Is consideration being given to increasing the number of lighthouses manned by three men; and could not more frequent changes be made, instead of what we have seen happening during recent weeks?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the question of the manning of these lighthouses is under constant review. With regard to what happened last week, the difficulty was to make a change at all.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint himself as to whether this question is under frequent review; and could he not arrange, apart from periods such as we have just been through, for more frequent changes to be made, say at least once a month?

Mr. Kelly: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of hours of duty performed weekly by each light-keeper at a lighthouse manned by two men?

Mr. Stanley: The nominal hours of duty by each light keeper at a lighthouse manned by two men are 84 per week. Between noon and lighting-up time, that is, approximately sunset each day, the light keeper on duty is only required to be on the premises, except where the station is equipped with a fog signal, when he is expected to keep a general lookout for fog. During fog, the two keepers would work watch and watch.

Mr. Kelly: Do these hours include the period which is termed the watching period; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain how many hours over 84 per week are worked by these men?

Mr. Stanley: I think the figures include the periods which are known as watching periods, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly where these people go when they are not on the premises, in their leisure time?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MILLING INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider appointing additional members to the Food Council, with a view to assisting them in inquiring into the cost of milling expenses and profits, in view of the high price of wheat offals compared with the price of wheat?

Mr. Stanley: The Food Council is concerned with articles of food for human consumption, and I am afraid I could not regard an inquiry designed to investigate the prices of wheat offals as appropriate to the council's functions.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some inquiry into the cost of milling expenses and profits is essential; and is he aware that the Royal Commission of 1925 laid it down that inquiries were essential in view of the price-fixing associations which existed in the milling industry. How long are these milling manoeuvres to continue?

Mr. Stanley: I have already answered a question on that subject within the last few days.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall continue the matter when Parliament reassembles, and shall go on and on.

Mr. Mander: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the event of any vacancies occurring among the Under-Secretaries, there are some very suitable applicants on the other side of the House?

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. Hunloke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the question of exports of wheat and flour from the United States was discussed in the recent negotiations for a trade agreement?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. This question was discussed with the representatives of the United States Government during the recent trade negotiations, and they furnished our delegation with a general statement of their policy in this matter. As the statement is somewhat long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:
The United States Delegation informed the United Kingdom Delegation that they would have no objection to the publication of the following as a statement made during the course of the negotiations of the Trade Agreement:
With reference to certain questions regarding the policy of the United States Government in relation to exports of wheat and flour which have been raised during the course of the negotiations of the Trade Agreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, signed this day, under which provision is made for the entry free of duty of wheat imported into the United Kingdom from the United States, the United States Delegation made the following statement:
The policy of the United States Government in relation to exports of wheat and flour has been determined by the existing world wheat situation and influenced by governmental policies elsewhere affecting the production, export and import of wheat. It is recognised that the restoration of equal treatment for United States wheat on importation into the United Kingdom is an important step towards the re-establishment of more normal trading conditions in the world wheat market. At the same time the United States Government through its wheat acreage adjustment programme, which is intended to reduce the area of 81 million acres sown to wheat for harvest in 1938 to 55 million acres in 1939, is undertaking, independently, a significant and constructive contribution towards the solution of the world wheat problem.
The United States Government has long held the view that the only sound way in which to find a solution of the problem of excess world wheat supplies is through international collaboration involving both wheat importing and wheat exporting countries. In view of its programme of acreage reduction combined with assistance to producers and in the absence of any international arrangement for dealing effectively with the problem of adjusting world export supplies to world import requirements, the United States Government has had to proceed independently with measures to assure that too burdensome a surplus will not be accumulated in the United States. This has necessitated a measure of governmental action in the export of wheat and compensatory assistance to exporters of flour. This policy is not designed to secure for United States wheat and flour a larger share of world import requirements than they enjoyed in previous years of normal wheat production in this country. Wheat is being marketed abroad through the regular trade channels in response to the demands of the markets. The scheme of assistance to exporters of flour is not intended to do more than compensate exporters for such prejudice as they might suffer from any differences between the prices of wheat within the


United States and in export markets resulting from the scheme of assistance to exporters of wheat.
While in view of rapid changes in the policies of other wheat exporting countries it is not possible for the United States Government to give definite assurances as to future policy in relation to exports of wheat and flour, it is confidently expected that this policy taken together with the programme of acreage adjustment already referred to will work in the direction of higher rather than lower prices in world markets.'

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

BRITISH CARGOES (FOREIGN SHIPS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the figures for each of the last three years of the volume and value, respectively, of the exports from British India to the countries of the British Empire outwith the United Kingdom; and the proportions of the said exports carried in British and non-British ships, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: With the hon. and learned Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the value of exports of Indian merchandise to British countries other than the United Kingdom for the years ended 31st March, 1936, 1937 and 1938. The official statistics published by the Government of India do not furnish information as to the volume of Indian exports to the British Empire, or as to the proportion of those exports carried in British ships.

Following are the particulars:

During the years ended 31st March, 1936, 1937, end 1938, exports of Indian merchandise to British countries other than the United Kingdom amounted to £17·7, £19·5 and £24·5 million respectively. Owing to the separation of Burma from India as from 1st April, 1937, the figures for the first two years include exports from Burma. The figure for the last year excludes exports from Burma but includes exports from India to Burma (valued at about £8,000,000). On the basis of exports from India and Burma together prior to the change, the figure for the year 1937–38 comparable to those given for the two previous years would be approximately £23,000,000.

Mr. Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade in connection with

the 15 non-British vessels chartered by the Government for the carrying to United Kingdom ports of Rumanian wheat purchased by the Government, what was the carrying capacity of each of those vessels; what sums were included in the respective charter-parties for stevedoring dues; and how were these sums expended, and to whom paid?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer to the first part of the question is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part, the sums included in the charter parties for stevedoring are 2s 6d. a ton in every case. These sums are being credited to the Board of Trade, who are paying the actual cost of stevedoring to the charterers.

Following is the table:

The cargo capacities of the non-British vessels fixed to load Rumanian wheat as provided in the charters are as follow:

7,000 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,400 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,400 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
6,500 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,200 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
8,500 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,400 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
8,800 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,200 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,000 tons 5 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
5,600 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
6,200 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
6,000 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,000 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.
7,000 tons 10 per cent. more or less at owners' option.

SEAMEN (LABOUR CONVENTION).

Mr. J. Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government are now prepared to ratify the convention concerning the liability of the shipowner in case of sickness, injury, or death of seamen, in view of the fact that the reason given in Cmd. 5745 for


non-ratification does not appear to constitute a substantial objection of principle?

Mr. Stanley: In order to ratify the convention to which the hon. Member refers, it would be necessary radically to alter the system at present in force in this country. This system is, as stated in Cmd. 5745, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, more advantageous to seamen than that provided for by the convention. This reason is, in my opinion, conclusive.

Mr. Hall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the fact that the United States and other countries have ratified the convention, this country ought to be prepared to introduce legislative proposals for the same purpose?

Mr. Stanley: If the effect of that would be to worsen the conditions of seamen under this head, I think it would be a very retrograde step.

MOSQUITO NETS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the number of firms in this country engaged by the Government on the manufacture of mosquito nets, and the number of firms abroad engaged by the Government on the same class of work?

Captain Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed that the firms who manufacture mosquito netting in this country are some 16 in number, and that at present some six of these are executing Government contracts for this store. No headquarter contracts are normally placed with firms abroad, though it may happen in times such as the recent emergency that a small local purchase is made on the authority of a local command.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the shortage of employment in the plain net trade at this particular time, and the fact that orders are being given abroad, can further consideration be given to this matter?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Could the hon. Member inform us whether there is any relation between mosquito nets and the weather we are having now?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WATER SUPPLIES, ISLE OF LEWIS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the progress made in the Isle of Lewis, apart from the town of Stornoway, in the provision of communal water supplies since 1931; and in which villages water supplies have been provided by the local authorities and the Department of Health for Scotland since 1931?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am informed that in the Harris district of the Island the Inverness County Council since 1931, with the aid of grants from the Department of Health, have provided piped water supplies for Leverburgh and Kintulavig, and for Scalpay, and have also taken over and improved the existing supply at Tarbert. I am not aware that any public water supplies since that year have been provided in the Lewis portion of the island by the Ross and Cromarty County Council.

Mr. MacMillan: May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that the Isle of Harris is not in the Isle of Lewis, and, therefore, has no bearing on the question? Will he consult his right hon. Friend on the geography of the Western Isles? With regard to that part of the reply which did bear on the question, may I ask whether it is the fact that there has been no progress whatever?

Mr. Wedderburn: It is all one island. In regard to the second part of the reply, I have been informed by the county council of Ross and Cromarty that they considered the proposal for a pipe water supply in that area to be impracticable.

Mr. MacMillan: Then will the Department finance it themselves?

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applications received by the respective physical training committees in Scotland for grants in respect of social centres since the physical training committees appointed under the Act of 1937 were constituted; how such applications were dealt with; and the number and amount of the grants actually paid or passed for payment.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that the regional committees have received eight applications for assistance under the Act in connection with proposals for the provision of community centres. These proposals, which involve a total expenditure of about £200,000, are at present being examined by the Grants Committee or the regional committee concerned.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister endeavour to accelerate progress in this matter?

Mr. Wedderburn: I received a few weeks ago a deputation from the National Fitness Council and the Grants Committee, and various means of accelerating the examination of these matters was discussed.

Mr. Buchanan: Could the Minister not make representations to the Unemployment Assistance Board and similar bodies to increase the payments made to poor people, in order that they themselves might do something to contribute to the improvement of physical fitness?

Mr. Wedderburn: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the Minister circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the bodies which made the applications?

Mr. Wedderburn: I have them here. The list is rather long, and I will circulate it.

Following is the list:

Applications for assistance in connection with proposals for the provision of community centres have been received from the following bodies:

Aberdeen Town Council.
East Lothian County Council.
Garrowhill Trust.
Girvan Town Council.
Greenock Council for Community Service.
Greenock Town Council.
Kilsyth Town Council.
Stirling Central No. 1 District Council.

POST OFFICE SITES, HORNCHURCH AND UPMINSTER.

Mr. Parker: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in carrying out the proposals for building

new Crown post offices at Hornchurch and Upminster?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am sorry that a site has not yet been found in either case.

Mr. Parker: When can action be taken in this matter? It has been under consideration a long time.

Sir W. Womersley: We are very anxious to find a suitable site, and we shall welcome any assistance from the local authority in this matter.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (WITHDRAWAL OF TRAINS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has a statement to make as to the withdrawal of many trains by the London and North Eastern Railway Company this month upon grounds of economy; and whether, in view of the statutory obligations of the railway companies, he is satisfied that the public interest is, in this matter, being fully safeguarded?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): The company inform me that the withdrawal of certain trains resulted from a review of passenger train carryings, and assure me that every care was taken to see that as little inconvenience as possible was caused to the public. I have no reason to think that, in consequence of the withdrawal of these trains, the transport facilities available to the public will be inadequate.

Mr. Adams: Has the Minister had complaints from any local authorities regarding these withdrawals?

Mr. Burgin: Not that I am aware of.

BILL PRESENTED.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921," presented by Mr. Mathers; supported by Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barr, Mr. S. O. Davies, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Groves, Mr. Lewis, Miss Rathbone, and Dr. Summerskill; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND) BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1938.
2. Public Works Loans Act, 1938,
3. Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938.
4. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
5. Paisley Corporation (Cart Navigation) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
6. Aberdeen Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
7. National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District) Act, 1938.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS).

12.14 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 31st January; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 31st day of January or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution.
The Motion for the Adjournment is in the usual form except for the proviso at the end, which is new, and the purpose of that is as follows. My attention has been drawn to the difficulty which may arise if you, Mr. Speaker, were ill or unable on account of any other cause to carry out the provisions of the Motion. As hitherto drafted, the Motion for Adjournment has placed the responsibility for calling the House together upon Mr. Speaker, and if he has not been able to undertake that responsibility there was no one else upon whom these powers would have devolved. If we wanted to call Parliament together again in these circumstances it could have been done by Proclamation, but the procedure under Proclamation is one which is tied down by certain limitations of time; and in the circumstances in which one might desire that Parliament should be called together it would probably mean that it would be required to be called together at once, and it certainly would not be desirable that there should be a delay owing to the Procedure. Therefore, we thought it was wise to provide that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, should be authorised to act under

this Resolution. I think we have made sufficient provision and, whatever the perils of the season may be, I do not think we have any reason to suppose that we shall have to put this proviso into force.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I think it is a wise precaution for an eventuality which we hope will not happen. I hope the Prime Minister will carefully consider the point as to when the public interest requires that the House shall meet, and that it will be called together in good time if there are serious matters on which the House ought to be consulted. In view of past events, many people considered that the House should have been called together earlier last time.

12.17 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: On a point of Order. Can we have a definition of the words "public interest"? During the Czechoslovakian crisis, in the Summer Recess, it appeared to myself and many others that the public interest was gravely imperilled, because it was a question of war or peace affecting millions of people in Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere, and that Parliament was not called together as early as it might have been. Surely, the public interest necessitated the summoning of Parliament at an earlier period; but the words "public interest," apparently, seem to cover everything except the public interest. I should like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to the correct definition of the "public interest" which must be served before the Government summon Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks me to define the words "public interest." The words "public interest" mean public interest.

Mr. Adams: On a further point of Order. In view of the fact that the very fate of the country may be involved, surely we ought to have some specific definition of what the words mean. This is not a new Motion.

Mr. Ede: May we take it that "public interest" will not mean the private convenience of occupants of the Treasury Bench? On behalf of the back-benchers, I should like to say that we trust neither hope nor fear have caused the Government to put the last words in the Motion.
We hope that we shall see you, Mr. Speaker, in January, or whenever we next meet, in your usual health and strength, and we sincerely trust that the Government have no sinister designs in regard to yourself.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that is in the public interest.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) has put a point of some substance. Although you, Mr. Speaker, are required under the terms of the Motion to be satisfied as to the public interest, the prime responsibility for deciding whether the public interest is involved rests with the Government. I submit that it is in order for my hon. Friend, if he wishes, to press his point, because it is not a derisory point but one of great substance. Many people felt, and I did so myself, that during the time of the September crisis the House might well have been called together in the public interest before we were committed to a certain course. Therefore, it would be in order if the Prime Minister could answer my hon. Friend in some way upon the point of substance which he has raised.

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can give any further answer.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: We are all agreed that it is in the public interest that the rights of democracy should be upheld. Many of us felt that in the last crisis there was a slight put upon the House of Commons because it was not called together earlier, and that it would have been in the public interest that Britain should have shown at a time of crisis that this House was the responsible body to deal with the situation in a responsible way. May I ask whether on any future occasion the place and prestige of this House will be considered in the interest of maintaining democratic institutions?

Wing-Commander James: May I ask whether there has been any indication during the last few weeks from the Opposition that there is the least likelihood of the Opposition acting in a responsible way?

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I should like to point out to the Prime Minister in this connection that there is now a Leader of the Opposition who receives a salary. In view of that fact, I think he should have a certain amount of responsibility with regard to the convening of the House in a crisis. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister whether in future he will take that point into consideration and give the Leader of the Opposition certain responsibility for the convening of the House in time of crisis.

Mr. David Adams: I should like to ask whether I can have the definition for which I have asked, in view of the fact that the public interest was most seriously jeopardised during the Summer Recess in the matter of the redrawing of the map of Europe, the fate of millions of people and the safety and welfare of this country and the Empire. All these interests were involved, and yet in the judgment of the Prime Minister the public interest was in no degree involved. Can we have a definition of "public interest"?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think any definition can be given other than that which I have given.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 3rst January; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motion that may stand on the Order Book for the 31st day of January or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Before the House rises for the Recess I wish to raise the question of unemployment and the condition of the unemployed. There are nearly 2,000,000 unemployed in this country. With their dependants they represent some 5,000,000 men, women and children. At this time of the year, that is a very melancholy picture to contemplate. Hon. Members, and the great mass of people in the country, are looking forward to the warmth and happiness of Christmas time, and some of the older people will be making believe with the children that Santa Claus is a real person. They will enjoy themselves. It is sad to think that for great numbers of men, women and children in this land there will be no Santa Claus this year. I do not overlook that what I am saying may be described as sentiment, but I am speaking of facts. Nor do I overlook the individual good nature of the people of this country. The least one can do is to pay a tribute to those people in different parts of the country who, individually, do their best to remember the people who are in need. But in spite of this, I think hon. Members will agree that Christmas will be a grim, gloomy and cheerless time for the great bulk of the people of whom I am speaking.
It would be bad enough if the numbers were spread over the whole country. I remember that four years ago, when the figures of unemployed were a little over 2,000,000—now they are just under 2,000,000—the House was stirred to its depths about the condition of the unemployed, when it was approximately the same as it is now. That cannot be said of the House at the present time when we discuss unemployment. I do not know what has happened to the House; I do not know what has happened to the Government; but there is not the same acute conscience on this matter as there was four years ago. I shall quote later in my speech a very striking statement that was made by the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, showing how acutely he felt on this matter. Of course, unemployment is scattered all over the land, but the tragedy

now is that three out of every four unemployed people are concentrated in certain areas. I do not overlook the fact that even in the most prosperous areas there is unemployment, and sometimes a high figure of unemployment. For instance, take the London area—the administrative area and not Greater London; according to the local index, in many places unemployment ranges from to per cent. to 14 per cent. That is the position in a prosperous area. It means that in that area one in ten men cannot get work, or indeed one in seven, if one takes the top figures. It is as though Mr. Speaker had power to dismiss one out of every seven or eight Members whose services were no longer needed. Perhaps that will bring home to hon. Members what this means.
We are accustomed to talking in figures, and the more millions there are the more indifferent we seem to become. We must not overlook the fact that in some of the prosperous areas there is a fairly high percentage of unemployment. In the areas where unemployment is concentrated, however, the tale is much worse. The average unemployment in Greater London is 8.6 per cent. and in administrative London 9.6 per cent.—much less than in some of the other areas. In Cheshire, the average is 15.2 per cent., going up to 21 per cent. In Cornwall, the average is 16.8 per cent., and in various districts in each locality it runs from 20 per cent. to 34 per cent. In Cumberland, the percentage is 21.5 on an average, and in places it goes up to 42 per cent. In Durham, the average is 21.8 per cent., ranging from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.
In the case of Lancashire—and I ask the Minister of Labour to take particular note of this fact—which is not a Special Area, according to a very useful indication map issued by the "Manchester Guardian" the black areas have over 25 per cent., and six out of seven of those areas are new since the Special Areas Act came into operation. Lancashire has an average unemployment percentage of 17.8, but it has a population of 5,000,000; and the percentage runs from 20 per cent. to over 40 per cent. in different places. In Scotland, the position in certain places is much the same. And what a sad story there is to tell of Wales, the most afflicted of all areas. The position there is lamentable. The outstanding thing about Wales is that in


some of the districts, particularly the crowded districts, where everybody is unemployed from village to village and from town to town, they have now got into the state of mind in which there is rivalry as to who has the most unemployed. That is an evil thing for any nation. In Wales, the average is 25 per cent., and it ranges up to 50 per cent. or even 6o per cent. in some places. This means that in this land whole communities of self-respecting people are deprived of the opportunity of playing their part in national production. They are subject to unemployment benefit, the Unemployment Assistance Board, or public assistance.

Mr. Buchanan: Or nothing at all.

Mr. Lawson: Or, as my hon. Friend says nothing at all. That is a terrible picture to confront any nation at any time, but for a nation like ours, which is girding up its loins in the possibility that it may have to wrestle for its very life, it is much more evil and menacing that conditions such as I have described should prevail within it. It is bad enough that men should be compelled to be idle day after day, month after month, year after year, but when you have centres of population in which everyone is idle, when you have whole masses of idleness, then it has an effect on the spirit of the people which I contend is even worse than the physical effect. We see evidence of the ravages of unemployment in people's clothes, in their footwear, in their external appearance. I know of no sadder thing than to come in contact with old friends, many of whom in former days were virile, active, independent men, who would have struck you if you had offered them clothes, and to find now that they are ever so grateful for a cast-off coat. Something has happened to the spirit of those men.
I ask hon. Members to mark this fact. In mining, shipbuilding, heavy engineering, cotton, fishing—in all those old-time industries of ours, you had the very backbone of this nation. It was on that virile portion of our people that we always prided ourselves. It is just those parts of the country where those industries were situated, that are so sadly afflicted to-day. It is hard for those of us who knew that industrial life of the old days to contemplate the present situation. We used to think, and we were right in thinking it, that it was a hard, cruel, crude life that

we led in those days. There was very little pay and sometimes, in literal fact, we had to fight for our living and to "keep our end up" as we say, but we enjoyed our leisure at any rate, and we were conscious that we had earned it. Nowadays, we find great communities frozen in unemployment. They are not drifting, but frozen. I have read the stirring story of how a great Arctic explorer discovered the art of fastening his strong ship into the ice and allowing the current to drift it over the Arctic line. But there is no drifting for these industrial communities of ours now. They are just frozen. It is worse now than it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and it was bad enough then. At the beginning of the industrial era it was complained that children took the place of their fathers in Lancashire. But children do not take the places of their fathers now. There are no places for either the fathers or the children. All the children can do is to leave home and go to other parts of the country.
I have heard people say, "But our own boys have to leave home to go to school and to go in various directions. "It must be remembered, however, that these children go out into the world and very seldom come back. In many cases the parents never see them again and, to put it bluntly, sometimes working-class parents in their later years have to rely to some extent upon the help of their sons and daughters. When those sons and daughters go to other parts of the country that help is lost. Under present conditions the younger people must migrate to what are called the more prosperous areas. It is only clutching at straws. I wonder whether the House realises what that migration means. I read a statement of the evidence given by the representatives of South Wales to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Population, in which they pointed out that each boy and girl transferred from South Wales had cost £54 to educate and that if 5,000 migrated that meant a cost to that part of the country of £270,000. We find the same melancholy story in evidence given from all parts of the country:
As a result of the closing down of industries in certain parts of the county, with the consequent migration of many of the inhabitants, there has been left behind what has been termed' the hard core of unemployment' which consists of men and women who have been unemployed for seven years.


Those who gave that evidence went on to point out that it was the young children, the boys and girls who were most profitable to the community who had to leave. The same thing can be said of the North-East. The evidence from that part of the country shows the losses sustained by the area as a result of this migration, mainly of the younger people and those most capable of finding employment. The representatives of the area say:
It is obvious that difficulties must arise when an industrial region is denuded of its younger generation and left with its older insured population. The problems created "—
I ask hon. Members' attention to the fact that it creates problems instead of solving them—
are both social and economic. In Durham County especially, the result of this migration has been to leave the area with an undue percentage of the older generation which complicates the provision of social facilities such as housing, schools, etc., and renders more difficult the work of the local authorities which already have a burden heavier than they can bear, by reason of the poor relief caused by unemployment.
The Ministry has first-hand knowledge of this kind of thing, and in view of that fact I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman remains so stolid and unmoved on this question of unemployment in the face of the evidence given to this Commission. That is very striking evidence. I do not think any more evidence was necessary as far as the effects of unemployment are concerned. Mr. Humbert Wolfe said that the problem of the location of industry had given rise to a number of unfortunate consequences. The problem of dealing with unemployment is difficult enough when spread over the country as a whole, but it becomes much more impracticable when it is concentrated in particular communities. Again, he said:
Where migration has taken place from the older industrial areas, it is, in the main, the more vigorous sections of the population which have tended to leave.
He concludes, in Section 3o of his evidence:
If things are left to work themselves out, there may be a long period of decline, involving widespread suffering. Many people, some of whom may be tied to the district for family or other reasons, will remain on in the perhaps vain hope of a return of industrial activity, but numbers will move to seek work elsewhere.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which employers themselves face this position. We are told to bring the young people down here, that there is a future for them in part of the Midlands and in the South. The Government are reluctant to face up to this question of location of industry. Mark the type of mind that is in control of industry. One gentleman, Mr. Mobbs—I wish I had him facing me at this moment—gave evidence, and this is what he said:
The owner or manager of a light factory, whether small or large, has a totally different education and social position to that which he had 50 years ago; so has his wife. They are not inclined to live in the climate of the North of England, and this climate is unalterable by human effort. They are not inclined to lose the social life which has developed in the South of England, educational, cultural and sporting. This is only alterable by holding the Wimbledon championships in Yorkshire, removing the Royal Academy to Lancashire and paying the heads of Government Departments and the bank managers in Northumberland as much as they are paid in London. It is unlikely to be altered. The manufacturer in light industries will not willingly face the labour problems involved in north country trade unionism, as compared with the more happy go lucky arrangements between manufacturer and employé in the South. This is perhaps capable of solution by an enlightened labour policy.
This is the type of mind that is controlling what is called light industry, and incidentally deciding the location of industry. This is the type of mind which brings a great part of our population from the rural areas into the towns and the cities and practically determines the flow of the industrial lifeblood of this nation. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman when we are going to get some decision from this Royal Commission that has now been sitting for a year. We were promised by the Prime Minister that he would ask them to speed up their report. Four years ago, as I said, the Prime Minister made a statement to this House showing that he had a conscience at that time in regard to unemployment. This is what he said on the 14th November, 1934:
Although in the present case we need not describe the disease as desperate, it certainly is sufficiently exceptional to warrant exceptional treatment. What we want here, as it seems to us, is something more rapid, more direct, less orthodox if you like, than the ordinary plan, and if we are to do what seems to me even more important than the improvement of the physical condition, if we are to effect the spiritual regeneration of these areas, and if we are to inspire their people with a new interest in life and a new


hope for the future, we have to convince them that these reports are not going to gather dust in some remote pigeon-hole, but that they will be the subject of continuous executive action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1934; cols. 1995–96, Vol. 293.]
The work had to be rapid. It had to be unorthodox. It called for some kind of immediate experiment by which a solution might be found. Will anyone in this House say that any solution has been found? The Special Areas have had to grasp at a straw and take what they could get in the way of a little financial assistance. Will anyone say that Government action in these areas has made any real difference to the unemployment problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied? Since that time Lancashire has degenerated into a Special Area. Part of Wales has become a Special Area, and part of Scotland. Sutherland, Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, Anglesey, Cardiganshire, Breconshire have now over 25 per cent. of unemployment and are Special Areas.
In the face of these terrible facts I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the Government's attitude? I am not asking what is their policy, because they have not got a policy. What I am asking is, what is their attitude of mind? I ask that because some ominous things have appeared in the Press. One newspaper actually said a month or two ago, when representatives of these areas had apparently been talking to some Minister, that the Minister said, "Well, the unemployed are all right. Why worry about them? They are getting benefit." I know that is only a newspaper statement, but I must say that it seems to fit in with the attitude of the Government. I should think it is almost incredible that any Minister would say a thing like that, but it does harmonise with what has been the attitude of the Government on this problem during the last year or so. Have the Government abandoned any hope of dealing with this situation? If that is the outlook of Ministers, I should think that the average citizen would say that it was a shameful thing, entirely worthy of those who have responsibility for the conduct of the nation's affairs. What are the Government going to do about the new Special Areas? I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce legislation some time next year, but we have had no indication of the line in

which that legislation is to be drawn. Apart from the general nature of the problem—and the Commissioner for the Special Areas has said in his report, published this morning, that it is really a national problem—I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the state of these new Special Areas. They really do merit more attention than they seem likely to get, if we are to take answers to questions as any indication. Lancashire has 5,500,000 people, but there are whole areas of it in a lamentable condition.
When are we going to get the Royal Commission's Report? I should like the Minister to give us some answer to that question to-day, if it is possible. I must say I never understood why this Commission should have been set up to deal with this question. The facts are well known. Nobody knows them better than the Minister of Labour. What other evidence he wants I cannot understand. All that is happening now is that the Royal Commission is getting so clogged up with evidence that it finds it almost impossible to disentangle it and arrive at any conclusions. There is evidence accumulated in reports, books, magazines and articles in the Press. There is a very good piece of evidence this morning in the Vote Office. The cry of the Special Areas and of the unemployed, to use an old expression, mounts up to Heaven.
We could give facts and figures and we could give human stories—I understand some of my friends may do so today—about the condition of things in this country of ours. This Government is watching the decay of some of the best of our manhood and womanhood with an air of langour and self-sufficiency which would be unbelievable did we not see it. It spends thousands of millions of pounds on external defence and it watches in a spirit of repose the slow and sure disintegration of some of the best of our people. Appealing to it is useless, and I have got past the stage when I expect any really vital action at all. But this is the great forum where we can appeal to the British public, and, with the facts as they are known, I cannot believe that the British public will continue to tolerate this state of things, or to tolerate a Government which treats unemployment as a matter of no concern.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), in a


speech of feeling and eloquence, claimed that the Government's conscience has fallen asleep over the unemployment problem. But I think that the spectre of the unemployed man haunts all of us, and especially at this time. It points a challenging finger at democracy to prove itself by action. I think we ought to express our appreciation of the admirable Report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, issued only yesterday. Its pages describe to us the main problem of unemployment. It has been so often stated that I hesitate to repeat it again. It is, firstly, the problem of the export areas. Then it is the problem essentially of the older worker, the man who has no present, no future and only a past, the man for whom society can find no other occupation than to stand idly on bleak street corners.
What are the remedies? First of all, to protect your home market and, in the lee of a tariff wall, to shelter your home industries from the full blast of foreign competition. Then you can then follow a vigorous export policy, and engage in a tug-of-war with the other nations of the world for valuable markets. The Government have recently shown that they are not willing to turn a docile other cheek to subsidised foreign competition. These two remedies the Government have so far undertaken. But there is a third remedy, and that is the attraction of new industries to the Distressed and Special Areas. I think the evidence of Mr. Humbert Wolfe, to whom the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred must have appealed to all of us. It was admirable evidence before the Royal Commission.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): It was the Ministry's evidence.

Mr. Kerr: Then hon. Members will support the action which the Ministry of Labour took up in giving its evidence before the Royal Commission. I was also particularly struck by a passage in the report of the Commissioner for the year 1937, in which he said that the Government, since the introduction of quotas and tariffs, could not escape responsibility for the location of industry. Whether we like it or not I think we are living in an age of ever-increasing centralisation. Year by year we have Bills dealing with industry covering more and more pages of the Statute Book.

This is a world tendency. Even in the United States of America, where, for many years, the spirit of the pioneer and the frontier engendered an indomitable individualism, the Administration has been compelled to increase the Federal power against the State power. Therefore we have to recognise the principle that centralisation in some form or other is inevitable.
The main problem which confronts us in considering the location of industry is the problem of London. Now London has become nothing else but a county of houses. What targets would not an enemy raider find through his bomb sights in the few square miles of London—the Bank of England and the City of London, the Houses of Parliament, and the Government offices in Whitehall, the ships and crowded warehouses of the Port of London; he would find also the smoke and bustle of great railway termini, and the jambed traffic of great arterial roads. But the trouble is that London, large as it is, continues to grow year by year. Year by year ugly suburbs of brick and stucco and khaki rough cast advance in ever-widening circles into the country. One writer recently wittily classified some of these architectural horrors as "By-Pass Elizabethan," "Jacobean filling stations" and "Stockbrokers' Gothic." But these suburbs are not only eyesores. Worse still, they are a strategic menace. It would be easy to draw a circle within a radius of St. Paul's and say that inside that circle no new industry should be set up. But such an arbitrary decision would face the Minister with many unforeseen problems. He would probably find that his post-bag would be full of angry letters demanding compensation. Would it not be easier to say that any new industry which started in the London area would not be able to enjoy the advantages of derating?
Now what about the policy of inducements to new industries in the Special Areas? Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, gives wide powers to the Treasury to finance and help new industries. But, as far as Lancashire is concerned, very few new industries, as far as I know, have come under this particular Section.
Let me take the case of my own constituency, Oldham, the one that I know


best, Oldham laid aside its pride and came in its workaday rags to prove its poverty. It proved that for many years persistent and large unemployment had been prevalent in the borough. It proved that it depended entirely on one main industry. We are now told that we must wait, like the Lady of Shalott for a handsome rescuer, till somebody comes, but that is a policy which does not easily commend itself to active, vigorous, and go-ahead people. Is it that manufacturers think that there is no market for them in the Special Areas? The Special Areas contain many towns with thousands of inhabitants, men and women used to the handling of all types of machinery, looms, spindles, drills, magnetos; and they contain many men and women who are only too ready to spend when their purses are full. Is it perhaps that adequate propaganda is not undertaken, that sufficient circulars do not arrive every morning on the desks of industrialists setting out the amenities and advantages of the Special Areas? Is it perhaps that the Treasury does not advance sufficient emoluments, that that Lady Bountiful, the Treasury, does not rustle a sufficient number of bank notes in the ears of aspiring manufacturers? Or is it that the lure and life of London still continue to attract other manufacturers ever southwards towards the great Metropolis? Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication in his answer as to the facts.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street accused him of being stolid and immoveable. My hon. Friend never writhes under the lash of public obloquy, for he can face his accusers with the clear gaze of a good conscience. He is no Colonel Blimp, no snorer in club armchairs. He is no flush-faced Tory squire pre-occupied only with his liver and foot-and-mouth disease. He is, I hope, in these changing days of Ministerial vicissitudes, a very Maginot line of immoveability. Having covered him with these few, I hope, well-chosen compliments, perhaps he will be able to tell me why more new industries do not come to the North, and what he intends to do about it.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I think that in these days it is well that the House of Commons should at least on occasion examine the serious problem of unemployment. I would like to say to the hon. Member

for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) that I rather deprecate his criticism of ugly London, for I must confess that when I go back home to Glasgow I cannot conceive of London as being ugly. It may have places that are not as well equipped and laid out as they should be, but I think there is far too much easiness in depreciating London as a centre in regard to housing. I have a great regard for Lancashire, but I think that if one had any right to make a speech about the ugliness of Lancashire, it could be done much more readily than a speech about the ugliness of London.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I am sure the hon. Member would agree with me that in London we want more control by somebody or other over the speculative builder.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, but at least the hon. Member is lucky that there is building going on in London. For my part, I would be glad if there were building going on at all at the present time in Glasgow. One of the things that I am beginning to feel, I will not say alarmed at, but rather worried at, is the trend of our discussions on unemployment. I am beginning to feel that there is almost a quarrel between town and town. The Glasgow Members made an effort to get certain munition works for the City of Glasgow, and that is a good human effort to make, but the hon. Member for Falkirk, sitting on the same benches as the men who made that effort, attacked the Glasgow Members because, he said, the factory ought to be in the town of Falkirk. Where shall be get to with that sort of thing? If we have a factory in Glasgow, with so many thousands put to work in it, up goes the flag, but at Falkirk, apparently, up goes a mourning flag, because they have not got work. Our job is not to raise Glasgow at the expense of some other town. Our job should be to try and raise the general community, whether it be in Lancashire, Wales, or the North of Scotland, and I hope we shall not start a scramble as between town and town.
In the past the Minister has been generally very smart and clever in giving us figures, and a favourite phrase of his has been "getting it in the proper perspective." I envy Members who can use certain words or phrases, such as "planning ahead." It always makes me feel that I should be more intelligent if I could


use such phrases. One of the great phrases is "getting it into its proper perspective," another is "planning ahead," and another "getting down to the fundamental facts." The Minister always replies to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) by breaking-up the figures of unemployment, and when he says there are 5,000,000 human souls unemployed in a year, he always points out, to mitigate that figure, that so many of them have been only five weeks, six weeks, or it may be eight weeks out of work. I want to put to this House what I think is the alternative view.
I take unemployment as being a disease. To the sufferers from it, it is a disease, and a terrible disease. Let me take it as if it were another kind of disease, such as tuberculosis, or rheumatism, or one of the dread diseases. It is true that the whole 5,000,000 people are not out for the whole year, but only for a small portion of it, though most of them are out twice or three times in a year for periods of from two to six weeks. How would you feel if you had three attacks of a disease in 12 months, three haemorrhages, say? It would be no consolation to you that it was broken up, that it only happened so many times in a year. It would outrage you and fill you with horror, but that is what is happening here. The right hon. Gentleman is breaking up the figures, but nevertheless this disease afflicts at least 5,000,000 human souls in a given year. But it is worse than that, because most of these people represent a wife and a family, and I am certain that the figure comes out at almost one in three British households to-day which at one period or another within 12 months have somebody unemployed in it.
The position is really serious. What do we see in the shipbuilding industry? We met a deputation of the shipbuilding unions upstairs recently and the position put to us was tragic. There are a number of centres that live on shipbuilding such as Belfast, Birkenhead, Barrow, the Clyde, the Tyne and the Wear. During the past six months there has hardly been a new merchant ship order placed in one of the yards. Whole stretches of the Clyde lie empty, with not a new order being taken; ships are being completed and unemployment is rising. I still have a sentimental regard—it may be my early training—for a craft, for the feeling of getting your hands on a tool and doing

something that you can see. To-day our boys in great masses in the towns are not being taught any craft or trade. They have been brought into jobs in the so-called light industries, the so-called new things, and Then at 16 or 18, when the trade board starts to operate properly, out they go, thrown on to the streets, with not a single day's training. One of the curses of the situation is that boys are left without any kind of trade having been taught to them. Nothing can take from me the trade that I learnt. One of the tragedies of the situation is to see these young people drifting about.
I want to say a word or two to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to housing and unemployment. Those of us who represent Scotland must know the conditions of housing is a great part of that country. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could do something in Scotland to link up this great urgent need of housing with the question of unemployment. Is there nothing that he can do? Here is a country that needs 250,000 houses, 65,000 in Glasgow alone. It is beyond human understanding and human knowledge, when there are 250,000 unemployed in Scotland and 250,000 houses required, to co-relate to some extent the two problems? I want to put another point to the Minister. In spite of the cold weather we have unemployed miners. Cannot the Minister of Labour look at this question and provide at least a temporary remedy? We have in my district to-day people on a night like this—Thursday is the night before they are paid unemployment benefit—decent folk sitting without a fire. Cannot we just picture them? I love to come into the House of Commons on a day like this where it is so comfortable compared with outside. Then I have to go back to Gorbals, and I think of the old age pensioners and the unemployed, decent people, who are sitting on the night before their pay day with no coal and no money. We have idle miners and coal-less families. Is it not possible, at least for a temporary period in weather like this, to give the means to the unemployed to get an extra supply of coal?
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) painted a tragic picture. I am more afraid of the kind of picture we shall see in the future. We are spending, according to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams),


£400,000,000 a year of public money on munitions, and yet we have the tragic picture which was painted by the hon. Member. What will the picture be when this expenditure ceases, when no destroyers are being built and when the rearmament programme ends? I stand aghast at what is happening. I see no efforts being made. Everybody talks about planning, and looking forward, and grappling with the problem. I think they are only phrases, for I see nothing being done to correlate our production and to take the old out of industry. I would plead earnestly with the Minister to look at the tragedy of the young men of 20 standing at the street corner while old men of 65 are overburdened with work. Will he not look at the pensions problem with a view to lowering the age and increasing the amount, and at the question of taking the old out of industry and giving the young a chance? If we can spend £400,000 on armaments, surely, when that expenditure ends, we can spend a lesser amount, if not an amount equal to that, in making some readjustments in the social distribution of wealth.
I am looking forward to going back for the Christmas holidays. I am as anxious as anybody to go back and have a decent holiday at Christmas. I do not grudge it of anybody; we all want it; but we have the terrible feeling that there are decent folk who are not looking forward with much pleasure to Christmas. When I come into the House in weather like this I always say to myself that it is fine if one has good boots and clothes and a good house, but Christmas is not a happy time for many other people. The sooner summer comes the better for them all. the Minister of Labour will not to-day give us a long list of figures in the usual way. Can we not have from him some human understanding? I remember when he was a candidate for Leith in a by-election, he won it partly because of his emotional appeal. Cannot we have some of that emotion translated to-day into actual practice? Instead of showing how one district is not so bad, and how the figures are going down here and there, can we not get something practical from the Minister? I do not ask too much of him. I do not ask him to solve the whole problem, but I shall go away happy if he rises and can say something which, even if it does not make Glasgow

happy, will make some part of Britain a little happier than it was last week. He holds a responsible position, one of the most honoured in this House, as Minister of Labour, and I trust that to-day he will, instead of giving us cold facts, rise at that Box and give us some real comfort which we can take to our constituencies to show that this great problem of unemployment is at least, if not solved, in process of being mitigated.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: It is impossible at any time to listen to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) without being deeply moved by the depth and sincerity of his eloquence. He speaks not only with great feeling but with a knowledge of the people whom he represents, and I, who have the honour to represent a constituency of a very different type, want to say that I wish him every success in the efforts he makes in this House to try to obtain better conditions and a more decent life for the people not only in his own constituency but others too. No one would be more pleased than I if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is able, in his reply, to give such an answer that the hon. Member for Gorbals can go back to Glasgow for his Christmas vacation, which he has done so much to earn, comforted and cheered. I agree with him in welcoming the opportunity which has been given to the House once more to debate unemployment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who opened the discussion, was quite right in reminding us that we ought not to forget the existence of nearly 2,000,000 unemployed, involving something like 5,000,000 people. The last thing we want is that unemployed men should think they are forgotten, that the country not only has no use for their services but has forgotten their plight.
It is not only a tragedy that this unemployment should exist, but it is also a matter of very serious political moment. I would remind hon. Members that it was the existence of 6,000,000 unemployed in Germany which helped to create the Nazi party there, and we should not blind ourselves to the fact that when very large numbers of men and women are unemployed they are likely to be tempted by extreme proposals either from the Right or from the Left. Therefore, if we wish to see this country continue to


pursue its orderly course of development it is necessary for us to give attention to this matter. In his speech the hon. Member drew attention to one or two matters to which I will make passing reference. Regarding the observations he founded upon the evidence given by one individual before the Commission on the Location of Industry regarding the comparative advantages of the south and the north for light industries, I thought he was attaching too much importance to the opinion of one man and drew too big a conclusion from what that one man had had to say. We would all welcome more industries in what are known as the Special Areas, but we have to be extremely careful as to the pressure we bring to bear upon industry. Hon. Members will agree that the important thing is that we should have industries—that is much more important than where an industry is located—because if any action were taken which would prevent a particular industry from developing the consequences would be more serious and more harmful. I should like to support the view of the Special Commissioner in his report upon the Special Areas, that pending the report of the Royal Commission on the Location of Industry industrialists should of their own volition consider the need for putting their industries in areas where industry is most required for the time being. If voluntary action could result in that being done it would be much better than having compulsion.

Mr. A. Edwards: That is such an old argument. It has been the experience that voluntary action has entirely failed. Would the hon. Member explain how restrictions on industry would stop an industry from developing? He suggested that if we said to a man, "You cannot come within this or that area" that his industry would not be started anywhere at all.

Mr. Lipson: What I had in mind was that if we say to a particular man who wishes to establish an industry in a certain area that he is not to be allowed to do so we do expose ourselves to the possibility that he may say "If I am not to be allowed to establish an industry in the place where I am satisfied that the conditions are such that I can make a success of my business I shall just not go on with it at all."

Mr. Edwards: But somebody else would.

Mr. Lipson: I do not know what authority the hon. Member has for that statement. One usually associates a particular proposal with the plans of a particular individual, and if the hon. Member is so sure that somebody else would come forward he can take the risk of thinking so; but the point I am making is the great importance of an industry being located somewhere rather than being located nowhere at all. One aspect of unemployment which has not been referred to this morning is the effect it has upon family life. It must be extremely difficult for a father who is unemployed to exercise the right control over his children as they grow up, and that is bound to have a serious effect on the development of the character of our young people, on their discipline and on the general qualities of mind and character, which must affect ultimately the future of this country. I do not agree with hon. Members opposite that the best way to get the improvement which everybody desires to see in the unemployment position is to criticise the Government and the Minister who is responsible and to say they have done nothing at all. The facts do not justify that assertion. I believe they will be much more likely to get what they want if they go to the Minister responsible without showing too great party bias, give him credit for what he has done and encourage him, on that basis, to do more I would add that if the responsibility for unemployment is chiefly that of the Government, it is also, in large measure, that of Members of the Opposition. I think we should all agree that one of the causes of unemployment is the unsettled state of the world to-day. If the fear of war could be removed, and if there were greater confidence, people would be willing to spend more money and industry would, therefore, be in a healthier condition and there would be less unemployment.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is some truth, and perhaps more truth, in the converse of the proposition which he has just put forward? Is it not more true that the cause of the unsettled state of the world is the unemployment in every part of the world?

Mr. Lipson: Both propositions have truth in them, but if you could deal with the economic evils that exist throughout the world peace would be more secure.

Mr. Silverman: Yes.

Mr. Lipson: For the time being the greater evil that awaits us, according to the view of many people, is the danger of another war. I say in all sincerity that if hon. Members would cease to criticise the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing of trying to come to an understanding with foreign Powers, and would not continually go about giving the impression that the catastrophe of war is very close at hand, thereby disturbing public confidence, they would be rendering a service to the unemployed. From that point of view I would suggest that when considering our foreign policy hon. Members should bear in mind the effect that their statements are likely to have on public confidence, and therefore on trade and industry.
I now want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether he would give encouragement to local authorities to proceed with those public works which are necessary for the wellbeing of the localities for which they are responsible, but which they are sometimes deterred from taking in hand, because of the amount of money that is being spent on measures of Defence. Not everybody is able to ignore armament expenditure, and I would remind my right hon. Friend that in many municipalities the argument is used that because they are spending so much money on armament expenditure, it is necessary to curtail local government expenditure for necessary work. If my right hon. Friend could say something to encourage local authorities to proceed with what is necessary for the welfare of their towns that would be a useful thing to do. I hope that he will, in collaboration with the Lord Privy Seal, consider whether it is possible to utilise in the provision of shelters the services of a great many of the unemployed, to meet the emergency of the times in which we are living. It is obvious that many of those men could find useful work in the excavation, digging and tunnelling that will have to be done. I hope that there will be co-operation in that respect. One cannot get away from the fact, when thinking of National Service, that there are something

like 2,000,000 unemployed. There is a contrast which the Government ought to try to bring home.
I would ask the Minister of Labour what proportion of the unemployed are under the age of 35 years? The problem is particularly tragic for the young people. I should like to express the hope that powers will be taken to compel young people, who are at present not doing it of their own volition, to preserve their fitness and morale. If they are not attending keep-fit classes of their own accord, I suggest that to do so be made a condition of their receiving unemployment benefit. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the opportunity of encouraging, in localities where it is practicable to do so, that as many unemployed men as possible should work allotments. During the War this was a very remarkable development. In a great many towns a good deal of land is available, and work of the kind I suggest not only helps to add to the family income, but keeps men healthily employed and prevents them from losing complete faith in themselves. As one who has had some experience of unemployed service clubs, I know what a large amount of very good material there is among the unemployed. Given an opportunity of useful work of one kind or another, I know that those men are very anxious to take it. In the running of the clubs they show a great deal of executive ability. I hope that every opportunity will be taken to preserve the morale of those people so that some outlet can be found for their ability.
Stress should be laid on the importance of young people being trained, so far as is practicable, in some kind of skilled occupation. The danger of unemployment is surely less when a man is master of a skilled trade. It is, therefore, important, if we are to prevent the unemployment problem continuing to grow, that we should give more care to the education of our young people in some kind of skilled trade, so that they may be more masters of their destinies than are those unfortunate people who have drifted into the ranks of casual labour and are therefore more liable to suffer unemployment. In conclusion, I would point out that unemployment is bound to concern every hon. Member, whatever his constituency. In my own constituency, which has a population of 50,000, the


unemployment figures vary round about 1,000. That is just as serious to us as it is to any other hon. Member representing a constituency in which the figures are larger. Anything that can be done by the Government to remove the great evil of unemployment and to give to the people of this country what they have always desired, an opportunity of rendering useful service, would, I am sure, commend itself to Members on all sides of the House.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Batey: Some of us will go away for the Recess much happier for the opportunity of saying a few words on this important question. My regret is that the opportunities of discussing the question of unemployment seem to be growing fewer. I was interested in the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Kerr). He seemed to put quite an opposite point of view from that which I hold. He congratulated the Commissioner for the Special Areas upon the report that has just been issued, and he also congratulated the Minister of Labour upon obtaining new industries for the Special Areas. I disagree with the hon. Member for Oldham on those two congratulations.
I have looked through the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, and it seems to me to be barren and hopeless. When you get to the last page, you feel that there is no hope at all in it for the unemployed. If there are any congratulations to be given to the Commissioner on this report, I have not been able to find the parts of the report that would justify such congratulations. A huge amount of money has been spent, but no work has been found for men, and that is what we want. That, in my opinion, is where the Commissioner has failed. As to the encouragement by the Ministry of Labour of new industries for the Special Areas, I would like to know where those new industries are. We know, of course, about the trading estates, and one has expressed one's opinion on them in this House again and again. The trading estates are futile. Although a large amount of money has been spent on them, they are not finding work for men, and, as long as they do not find work for men, we are bound to condemn them.
I want to-day to deal with one part of the distressed area of Durham. One

does not want to deal even with the general question of unemployment or the general question of the distressed areas, but to bring the Minister back to one important part, namely, South West Durham. The Minister 12 months ago described it as a black spot. He will not say that it is a white spot to-day, even in spite of the snow, because South West Durham has simply got worse. In my division there are two Employment Exchanges. At the Spennymoor Exchange, in January of this year, the percentage of unemployment was 20.5; in November the percentage had increased to 26.6. At the Crook Exchange, in January of this year, the percentage was 21.1, and in November it was 3o; and it was 30 in spite of the fact that one timber factory has been started there—not by the Ministry of Labour. My complaint is that the Ministry of Labour in South West Durham is hiding itself behind the Commissioner, and the Commissioner is hiding himself behind a new committee which he has set up and which he calls the South West Durham Improvement Association.
There were great hopes 12 months ago when the Minister of Labour announced to the House that this new body was being set up. I rather fancy that then it was called an Executive Committee, but names do not matter; what matters is what the committee or association is doing for the unemployed. It was started in October, 1937, and the Commissioner in his report says that that Improvement Association to improve a distressed area like South-West Durham has met 12 times in the 13 months—not once a month. Here is a problem that needs to be solved; here are men and women absolutely losing hope. There seems to be no prospect at all of anything being done for these people, and this association behind which the Commissioner and the Minister are sheltering themselves is content with meeting 12 times in 13 months. What hope can there be from an association like that? It seems that they have no interest in the question, or, at any rate, do not realise the seriousness of the problem with which they have to deal. Otherwise they would certainly have met more than 12 times in 13 months.
The association seems to have only two ideas for solving the problem of unemployment in South-West Durham. One is to clear sites, and the other to demolish


villages. For the purpose of clearing sites, villages and old coke ovens—I am prepared to admit that these last do not look nice—the Commissioner says he has made grants to the association up to an expenditure of £110,000. I submit, however, that this clearance ought to be done by the people who made those ugly sites —by the coalowners who put those pit-heaps there and left the old coke ovens there. The Government consider that it is a policy to clear these sites, and the owners of the land will have the sites cleared for them and thereby enhanced in value. I could understand the clearing of sites as a policy if there were no sites available in the county of Durham at the present time, but there is an abundance of vacant sites waiting for industry if it wants them. It is no use arguing that industry does not come to Durham because these sites need to be cleared.
As regards the demolition of villages, the Commissioner tells us that he asked the association to report on the clearing away of a lot of the old houses in some of these villages, and the association is proposing to demolish them and have houses built by the National Housing Association in some other part to rehouse the people displaced. That is not a solution of the problem. The National Housing Association is simply going to make things worse in the distressed areas of the county of Durham than they are at the present time. The National Housing Association was set up by the Ministry of Labour, and only the other day I asked the Minister a question about some 3o houses which are to be built by the association in one part of my division. Under the Slum Clearance Act houses not finished by the end of this year lose much of the subsidy, with the result that this association, although its object is to help the unemployed in a distressed area, has served notice that in this village the rents of these houses will be 2s. 7d. a week higher than those of the houses previously built by the association.
It is no use asking people who are now paying 5s. a week rent for old houses to go to new houses where the rent is 10s. 6d. or 11s. a week. To ask men receiving unemployment assistance to pay anything like that is hopeless. While the Government have cut down that subsidy, the Minister of Labour wants to solve this

problem; but it is no use saying, "We are going to pull down old houses in colliery villages and build somewhere else," unless you can let hose new houses at reasonable rents that unemployed persons and people working for low wages can pay. That is the only thing this Housing Association proposes in Durham. The Commissioner says of the position in this area that the wholly unemployed have increased from 8,985 to 10,810, or by 20.2 per cent., while last year there was a decrease of 20.8 per cent., so that the position is now as it was in September, 1936. It is time the Ministry of Labour, instead of taking on new services, as it is proposing to do, took off its coat and did something for the people in such areas.
I want to come back to the old remedy. It is no use the Minister saying, as I know he will, "Look at the number of factories and trading estates that we have established." The distressed areas problem is a mining problem, and, unless the Government are prepared to deal with it as such, they will never solve it; but they can solve it if they face the problem as being one of mining. The Government allow wealthy coal companies in the County of Durham to close down their pits without any consideration for the men employed or their wives and families. Recently a pit belonging to Dorman, Long and Company was closed in my division. They closed that pit because it suited their purpose. There is abundance of coal to be worked in that pit. Someday somebody will have to go to the expense of pumping the water out of the pit and putting up new head gear in order to work the pit. Dorman, Long made a profit this year of no less than £1,285,000. With that immense profit, they closed down the pit, where 700 men were working; and those men, in this cold weather, have to exist on the dole.
Unless the Government realise that this is a mining problem, and are prepared to get some of our pits open and keep them open, there is no hope for the distressed areas; the Ministry of Labour might just as well shut their doors, or devote all their attention to national service. The Commissioner deals in his report with the production of oil from coal. We believe that the present condition of things could be easily remedied if the Government would realise that the extraction of oil from coal was necessary, and if it were done by the Government.
The Commissioner seems to have been hoping that some private firm would come along and set up a plant. He says:
During the past 12 months, however, 1 have received no applications from persons contemplating projects of this kind to which it has been found possible to offer assistance.
Unless somebody is prepared to come along and put up the money, he is satisfied that unemployment should continue. They will have to do it if ever a war comes. They talk about underground shelters, and trying to protect people from bombs, When war comes the Government will have to find the money in a hurry to set up this plant; they ought to do it now. If they did, I believe that every man unemployed in Durham could be back in the pits, and that this problem could be solved. It will never be done with a Government like this, and with a Ministry of Labour like this.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) mentioned that in certain of the distressed areas this problem was fundamentally a mining problem. But he appeared to pin the whole of his faith to the extraction of oil from coal. By all means, let us do our utmost to encourage the extraction of oil from coal; spend money on it, establish factories; but I believe the mining Members of this House and the mining community generally would follow a far more profitable line if they encouraged by every possible means modern methods of using coal. These methods are encouraged far more in foreign countries than they are here. Take one case: producer gas plants. Producer gas is an extraordinarily cheap and efficient method of motor transport, either for lorries or motor cars. In one totalitarian State, I believe they have passed a rule that where there are fleets of buses and motor lorries a certain percentage, 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., have to be run on producer gas. That is Italy. I understand that in Germany they are using, again British patents in the modern use of coal, producer-gas for tugs and for coastal trading steamers. It will help employment enormously in the mining areas in this country if the Government and industry would concentrate upon and encourage the use of these modern methods of using coal. Of course we do nothing of the kind. One of the latest

things done in the way of subsidy is to subsidise fishing boats so that oil-driven boats shall displace steamboats. would beg of hon. Members especially interested in coal not to be led away by what may prove to be a "will o' the wisp" of oil production, but rather to concentrate on modern economic methods of using coal.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member stated with interest the development of the use of producer-gas in Italy and in Germany, and I agree with his plea that it should be done here, but he suggested that we were chasing a "will o' the wisp"—

Mr. Loftus: I did not say that we were doing so but that we might possibly be doing so.

Mr. Griffiths: What the hon. Gentleman has been praising in Germany is the development of the oil from coal industry where they are actually producing TO per cent. of the oil used as compared with 7 per cent. in this country.

Mr. Loftus: I agree there, but I said that it might be a "will o' the wisp" and might in the long run be so expensive to extract. Germany is not using it for economic motives, but for other purposes.
I return to the very eloquent and moving speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in opening the discussion. At the end of his speech he became highly controversial. I will not attempt to answer the controversial nature of his speech, because I believe that the best use that any Member of this House can make of this discussion is to contribute as far as he possibly can to putting forward ideas which may be of some use in dealing with this very terrible human problem. A Debate like to-day's Debate is of immense use, because man is a very adaptable animal, and we are apt to get used to existing conditions, which a few years ago would have demanded continued energy and progress. We have to do our utmost to solve the unemployment problem. We have to try nearly everything, but there is a limit to what we can try. The unemployment problem has been solved in other countries. It has been solved in Russia and in Germany by totalitarian methods of financial and industrial control, but the price paid for


solving the problem has been the complete suppression of individual liberty and the complete and utter subordination of man to the economic process.

Mr. Kelly: They have not solved the problem.

Mr. Loftus: I think that in Germany they have solved the problem.

Mr. Kelly: They have done nothing of the kind.

Mr. Loftus: That is a price which we must always refuse to pay. But there is this danger that were the problem to get worse and the unemployment figures to rise rapidly, we might be tempted to start on that slippery slope of complete economic self-sufficiency and of control of currency and of industry. Once you start on that road you must go on, and the end must be some form of complete State capitalism, as it will have to be in Germany. On the other hand, I feel that we can do a great deal to bring about better employment and prosperity by making certain modifications in our monetary policy. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that, if they take the wholesale price level and the figures of unemployment in two columns, they will always see that, where the wholesale price level has fallen, unemployment has risen. They seem to forget that in order to keep a high level of employment you must maintain a satisfactory price level, because obviously the buyers of our goods are the primary producers throughout the world—the men who produce corn, meat, cotton, wool, copper and iron. If you force down their prices they cannot buy our manufactured goods, and I feel that hon. Members opposite and in all parts of the House should pay more attention to the question of monetary policy with its bearing upon unemployment. I would almost suggest that to-day the primary producer throughout the world who is the purchaser of manufactured goods is being sweated in every country by those who dwell in the cities—financiers, distributors and manufacturers. The prices are too low. We must not cause unemployment in the future, as did the last Labour Government.

Mr. Kelly: Nonsense.

Mr. Loftus: I would point out to the hon. Member that I am not saying this in any controversial manner. I am going

to deal later on with the financial policy of the present Government. We must not sacrifice employment to the vicious system of always keeping the level with the dollar. It was the attempt to maintain parity between 1929 and 1931 which forced up the unemployment figures to those great heights. I will go further and deal with later events. In March, 1937, there was deflation in America and the forcing down of the price level and a tremendous rise in the number of unemployed. At that time I hoped that we in this country would not maintain the level with the dollar, because I knew that if we did, unemployment must rise in this country, as it did. Unfortunately, we maintained parity with the dollar, which meant deflation and the fall of prices here, and also meant, as it always must mean, rising unemployment. In any period of falling prices we must be very careful about increasing taxation. When the last Budget was introduced I suggested that 6d. on the Income Tax would have a deflationary effect, and intensify the fall of prices and increase the number of unemployed. A time of falling price levels and of rising unemployment is the time when there must be an increase of purchasing power, provided if necessary by the Government, in order to redress the situation. I would go so far as to suggest that at such a time it is not only necessary, in order to check the rise of unemployment, to help by subsidising production, but it may be desirable to consider methods of increasing production by financing consumption.
My second point is, that we have men and women who are willing to work, who are unemployed. That is a waste of
national resources. We have another waste of national resources, in that we have land unemployed and unused, good agricultural land. I do not believe that we shall ever solve the unemployment problem unless we link it up with the problem of the land. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the admirable first report which he presented a few years ago in regard to unemployment on the north-east coast, emphasised the importance of linking the unemployment problem in Durham with land settlement. Land settlement is absolutely essential, and will become more essential that in view of the fact that throughout the world the folly


of man is rapidly destroying good food-producing land. In yesterday's Debate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) suggested that we should colonise our own countryside. That is necessary. We shall never get a thoroughly balanced national economy unless we get more of our people on the land, and unless we get that balance we shall never reach a solution of our unemployment problem.
The third point that I wish to make is, that where our men are unemployed, especially the older men, it is a tragic thing that they should be allowed to deteriorate and to lose heart and spirit in utter idleness. Where they cannot be found employment, surely something could be done. I received a week or two ago an account by Mr. Peter Scott of the Society of Friends' magnificent work in South Monmouthshire at Brynmawl. There, they have taken the older unemloyed men and started several hundreds of them to work on a subsistence method. In the community they work on the land and in a disused factory which has been acquired, and produce goods of all kinds. They get their unemployment allowance but they are not allowed to sell the goods which they produce; they consume the goods themselves. I should like to read a few words in regard to what is happening there:
The dole is pitifully small as the sole source of a family's income, but at least the spectre of want has been driven from the members' homes. Even the dole will suffice when goods can be bought 'at the cash cost of production'—when milk costs less than 1½d. per pint, and the housewife can get a well-cut costume for 35s. or a 2-lb. loaf for a fraction under 3d. No longer are the members' children pale and listless from under-nourishment. Best of all, the men themselves need next sit at home all day, sucking at empty pipes, brooding.
That is a fine work which deserves support and is well worthy of investigation by every Member of this House. I hope to go down there personally to investigate the scheme. My suggestion to the Government is this: Here is a scheme which is spoken of in the highest terms by all who have seen it, which is warmly praised by the Commissioner, a scheme specifically dealing with the older unemployed men and benefiting the men and their families. Surely, where it is realised, as in some areas, that the older men are unlikely to get work, financial assistance ought to be given on a generous

scale to schemes on this basis throughout the country. I beg His Majesty's Government to consider that matter.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in a very eloquent speech, spoke of the tragedy of young men not having apprenticeship training. I agree with him. We ought to do something to rectify that. I have always been in favour of every young man without exception being given some kind of training for six months in useful work, so that he can serve the State. I believe that that would make for comradeship, for national health, that it would diminish class barriers, and that it would give every young man the idea of service to the community. My final suggestion is this. We are bearing an enormous burden of taxation, a burden which will increase. That weight of taxation and the weight of our social services can only be borne if we have a high national income. A high national income is simply another way of saying a high national production. It is essential that we should get the highest possible national production of wealth, so that we can bear this burden of taxation. Therefore, when we see men who are capable of work, not being used for production, and when we see land capable of being used, not being used for production, it is a waste of national resources at a time when we require to use every possible national resource to sustain the burden with which we are faced.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Nobody could have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech without realising that he was deeply sympathetic to the problem, and had devoted a good deal of study to methods of solving it. But I suggest that it will be necessary, if he is to bring that study to any useful conclusion, that he should clear up some of the contradictions in his own mind about it. He will have to decide whether the problem of the land or the problem of the financial stranglehold on industry is the only thing that matters. He will have to decide whether what is needed is an increased production of wealth, which he recommended at the end of his speech, or an increased consumption of wealth and a State-subsidising of purchasing power, which he recommended in the earlier part of his speech.

Mr. Loftus: You cannot consume unless you produce.

Mr. Silverman: I know, and that, of course, is the whole quarrel. Instead of allowing sufficient purchasing power to be in the pockets of the people, so as to enable them to consume the goods that they are only too anxious to produce, we have gone the other way and said, "Because you have not the purchasing power to enable you to consume we will not allow you to produce at all." What we on this side of the House have claimed and appealed for is an understanding of the problem along the lines on which the hon. Gentleman is now painfully stumbling, but with a realisation that you must put the emphasis on letting the people produce the goods they need, and giving them the purchasing power will enable them to consume them. I do not think for a moment that the hon. Member was really indifferent about it, but he regarded it, perhaps because of the needs of his own constituency, from a purely intellectual point of view, and the things that provide him with interesting academic problems are the things which produce tragedies in the constituencies of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House.
I am not one of those who complain that the Ministry of Labour should recently have taken an interest in national service. I think that that Ministry ought always to have been a Ministry of National Service. It has been during most of its career, and is at this moment, not a Ministry of National Service, nor a Ministry of Labour, but a Ministry for the administration of unemployment relief, and it does not do that job well. National service by all means, and the Ministry of Labour is the proper Department to run it. We have at this moment 2,000,000 people only to anxious to render national service, service in defence of the standard of living of the community, service in defence of its civilisation, service in defence of all those things which make its contribution to civilisation worth having. What do we do? We keep those who rendered national service at the most heroic time, between 1914 and 1918, idle for 20 years without the opportunity of rendering any service of any kind, and then, when you feel that their national service becomes necessary in order to get you out of trouble which your own impotent foreign policy has mainly brought about, you suddenly discover that the Ministry of Labour ought, after

all, to be concerned with national service. But not yet. Not till the war breaks out. In the meantime let them go on—people in the best years of their lives idle.
We want a real national service, which will enable the resources of the community, both natural and human, to be continuously employed in the service of the community and its results enjoyed by the community, and when you have a national service of that kind your foreign problems will largely disappear. It is not for nothing that the figures in Germany which deal with those members of the population who are now employed, directly or indirectly, in preparation for war should, by a curious coincidence, total almost the exact figure of unemployment in Germany before the present regime began. They simply employed their unemployed on the production of goods which do not need a foreign market. We in this country under our National Government, in so far as we have made any contribution whatever to the problem of unemployment during the last three or four years, have done it by exactly the same methods as they have employed in Germany, namely, by rearmament. I do not propose to say whether that is necessary or not. I only say that it is a significant thing that in both countries the unemployment problem has been dealt with in the production of goods which need no foreign market. That is what I said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) when he said that the unsettled state of the world contributed to unemployment. I pointed out to him that, so far from that being the case, it was our inadequate economic organisation, and the unemployment which it produces, which unsettles the world and gives rise to the problems with which we are all so tragically faced in the near future.
We shall have to deal with this problem as a problem of civilisation, as a problem fundamental to human progress. It is not an incidental thing to be dealt with by a patch here, or a poultice there, or a pill somewhere else, it is the underlying problem of the whole of our Western civilisation to-day. It is at the root of all our troubles, and the question of whether or not this civilisation in Western Europe can continue at all is to be answered by whether or not we can find


means of economic and social organisation which will solve the problem of unemployment and the problem of poverty. I have not time to dwell at length on these wider problems. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who said we ought not to try to deal with this problem by pitting town against town, or district against district, but asked, What can we do in this House? What can we do to bring to the notice of the House and of the Government the particular applications of this problem as it presents itself in the local circumstances that we ourselves so well understand by frequent contact with it? We are not dealing here with a question of individuals, we are dealing with dying industries, and for their mortal disease this particular Government bears a particular responsibility.
I am not going into the general merits of the fiscal controversy. That was decided some years ago in favour of those who believe in protection. No one ever thought that a policy of high tariffs could do any good to shipping, or to our export trade, or to coal. When the Government decided to adopt the policy of Protection in order to improve home industries they deliberately chose a policy that could not fail to have an adverse effect upon Lancashire. Therefore, I say that the Government have a direct responsibility for the results which that policy has produced, quite apart from general principles. Let us consider the figures. I do not intend to quote them very fully, for many of them have been given in recent Debates. One little community, the name of which I will not mention, had a population of 5,700 50 years ago; in 1913, its population was 7,095; and to-day it is 5,900—back to where it was 50 years ago. In my own constituency, for the 10 years period covered by the policy to which I have referred, the death-rate has exceeded the birth-rate in an increasing degree year by year.
One hon. Member spoke about the average unemployment in Lancashire being 17 per cent., and he went on to point out that in various parts of Lancashire, the figure went up to 20, 30 or 40 per cent. I believe that the current figure for one part of my constituency is 45 per cent. What is too often forgotten is that when you have dealt with unemployment in the weaving towns of Lancashire, you have begun to recognise only

part of the problem, for the people in those weaving towns who are under-employed are much worse off than those who are unemployed altogether. What are the figures in this connection? I will take two representative instances. In one case the figure for unemployment is 28 per cent., but on top of this there are 43 per cent. who are under-employed. Do not let it be forgotten that those 43 per cent. who are under-employed are worse off than the 28 per cent. who are unemployed. In that little town, 71 per cent. of the population are living on an average below the level laid down by the Unemployment Assistance Board.
In Darwen, the figure for unemployment is 27 per cent. and the figure for under-employment is 47 per cent.—that is to say, 74 per cent. of the population are living below the level—which certainly is not a high one—fixed by the Unemployment Assistance Board. Is it not time that something was done to deal with this problem? People talk about the problems of unemployment, the export trade and Lancashire. One does not need to refer to the matter in such terms. It is a problem of food, clothing and shelter for these people. Those who are under-employed receive no unemployment relief. I have raised this question many times in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman's answers have always reminded me of Sam Weller in "Pickwick Papers," who, when he was dissatisfied with the result of a famous piece of litigation, described it by saying, "Why wasn't there an alibi?" The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour is never at a loss for an alibi. On the first occasion on which I raised the matter, he said that he would be out of order if he dealt with it. [Interruption.] I was in order in raising it, and I should have thought that he would have been in order in replying to it.

Mr. E. Brown: Mr. E. Brown indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I prefer the opinion of the Chairman who presided over that Debate to the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman tried to press upon the Chairman, without success. The only arbiters of order in the House are Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or the Chairman when the House is in Committee. If they think I am in order, I am content with their view. At any rate,


the right hon. Gentleman found an alibi on that occasion by saying that he thought it would be out of order to reply to questions which were in order when they were raised. On the next occasion, he had another alibi. He said that he would willingly deal with the problems I had raised with regard to unemployment, but that it would not be fair for him to deal with them on that occasion because another hon. Member—one of his colleagues—had had a question on the Paper for some days in regard to those matters, and it would not be fair to anticipate the answer to which that hon. Member was entitled to the question that he had put down earlier. I thought that was a reasonable excuse for not dealing with the matter on that occasion, and I awaited with great interest the answer that was to be given. That answer was a completely negative and non-committal one.

Mr. E. Brown: Mr. E. Brown indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman does not agree, but the answer amounted to saying that he could do nothing about it. I think he said, in the course of a Debate in which I took part, that this was, after all, the result of the general structure of industry, and that it could not be dealt with because it arose out of the general structure of industry. Taking the hint which the right hon. Gentleman gave me, I attended upstairs a meeting to which a deputation came from the cotton organisations asking for support for proposals for legislation which they were making with regard to the reconstitution of the industry. I asked whether those proposals contained anything to reconstitute the industry in such a way as to deal with the problem of under-employment. They replied that they thought perhaps in the long and distant future they could reduce it, but never abolish it.
I say most earnestly and seriously to the right hon. Gentleman that it really will not do to leave 74 per cent., 70 per cent. or any percentage of the hardworking weavers of Lancashire in a condition in which they work 48 hours a week and go home at the end of the week with 10s., 12s. or 15s. There must, be some way of tackling this matter, and it is the right hon. Gentleman's business to tackle

it. For what is he waiting? Is it really impossible so to amend unemployment insurance legislation, if amendment be necessary, as to give effect—

Mr. Speaker: That could not be done without legislation.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry; I recognise that it is out of order to raise matters which would involve legislation. Let me say that since the Minister has always expressed the view that the under-employed weavers have an unanswerable case, and since he has not thought fit to introduce legislation, I can only deduce that his view is that amending legislation is not necessary, and that the position could be dealt with on administrative lines. If that be so, why does he not amend the regulations in some way, or so control their administration and application, as to recognise the position in which a man finds himself, when he is only in the technical sense fully employed and in reality, for a great part of his time, is unemployed, and give him some portion of unemployment relief to cover the actual unemployment from which he suffers? Or does he intend to wait until real tragedy has begun? One cannot, for long, maintain a household on 10s. or 12s. a week. Some of my hon. Friends have, with great justice, been pressing the claims of the old age pensioner who has only 10s. a week on which to live. Nobody thinks that he can live upon it. But think of the man who has a wife and family dependent upon the 10s. or 12s. which is the wage he gets for a 48-hour week.
The right hon. Gentleman must take some responsibility for it. It is not that he himself has any doubt about the justice of the case. If he had, I could understand his position better. If he thought there was some controversy or doubt about it; if he thought that there could possibly be two views about it, I could understand his inaction. But I cannot understand his inaction when I know that for over two years he has admitted the natural justice of the claim. In spite of that admission, he takes no step of any kind to do justice where he admits injustice now exists. The Board of Trade does not help. Has the right hon. Gentleman made any approaches to them? If he says that this is a problem of the industry with which he is not capable of dealing, then we would like to know whether he has asked anybody else to deal with it.


If so, would he tell us what they propose to do? If they propose to do nothing, will he say so frankly and allow the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) to go back to Oldham and tell them there that that is what he has got from the Minister of Labour on this question.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that at this moment many thousands of weavers in Lancashire have almost completed a week's work. They will probably get their wages to-morrow. Those wages will amount to 10s., 12s. or 15s. They will have all the ordinary family obligations to discharge out of those few shillings. We are at the season of the year when most people think that a little extra happiness, even the little extra happiness which comes from extra material comforts, is called for. The right hon. Gentleman, I am told, used to make emotional speeches. Cannot he bring some little comfort to these people whom he has known for two years to be labouring under a social injustice of the deepest dye? I know that he cannot give them any more money this week. But can he not give them a little hope, or must they get from this Debate only the ordinary expressions of the right hon. Gentleman's impotence? I leave the case with him. He knows the justice of it. Will he do something about it?

2.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: This problem, which is not a problem of the last four years, or, indeed, of the last 40 years, but a problem of much longer standing, has been raised once again on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I wish to say at the outset that no one could have done the unemployed of this or of any other country a better service than the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in the careful, accurate and poignant way in which he stated their case. But I would not care to say the same about the speech to which we have just listened. The attitude disclosed in that speech was markedly different from the attitude disclosed in the speech which opened the Debate. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) knows that about the problem which he has just raised, I have been asked to do one thing. I have been asked to take measures, inside the framework of the Insurance Acts, to add to the wages of those who are under-employed, in the

sense that their wages are in some cases less than the subsistence level. I have looked at that problem more than once, and recently, in response to an appeal, I examined it again to see whether it was administratively possible to do so inside the terms of the Act and without raising grave issues such as the issue which the hon. Member himself allowed to slip out in one sentence, namely, the issue of subsidising wages. I have told the House frankly that we have been unable to find a way out on that side.
The hon. Member knows more than that. He knows when he comes down here and seeks to put the whole burden on my shoulders, as Minister of Labour, that it is a responsibility which cannot solely rest there. I am willing to bear any responsibility which properly belongs to my office. My shoulders are broad enough, as I think I have shown, since I became a Minister, and indeed before I became a Minister, to bear without complaint any responsibility which hon. Members care to put upon me. But the hon. Member and other Lancashire Members who have under-employed people in their areas know that it is not simply an insurance problem. To talk as if that were the case indicates, I suggest, a very superficial reading of history. History comes into it, custom comes into it, the record of a great trade and of its rise and its decline all come into it. Not only that but there are the customs of the men in the trades concerned, built up after generations of bargaining and struggle. All these are elements in the problem. The hon. Member knows how often Members of the House have put this problem to me, and how many important delegations of employers and employed and of joint councils from Lancashire have seen me about it. Anyone who reads the records of those deputations will know that I am justified in saying that not only have I been unable to find a solution of the problem from the insurance angle, without raising issues which would mean the most fundamental changes, but that those on the side of industry themselves have not been able to find a solution for their own industrial problem in connection with this very grave situation.
It does not serve the purposes of discussion or solution to pretend that you can separate the insurance side of the problem from the industrial side of it.


The history of that industry and of the old struggles between employers and employed as to how it should be carried on and how remunerations should be fixed—the number of looms, for instance, which each worker in this particular section should operate shows how complicated it is. It is not so simple as the hon. Member suggests. He pretended that it could be put in a sharp and clear-cut way, but he might just as well pretend to solve the whole problem in terms merely of economic rules and economic facts. He is leaving out intractable and intangible factors which have been found baffling not by one Government in this country but by all Governments ever since we got to the present industrial situation and even long before that time. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street took a very different view from that.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to be unfair. I think he will do me the justice to remember that what we were to have debated on this Adjournment Motion, by arrangement, was the subject of the condition of the people. It is not my fault or responsibility that the Government should have chosen the Minister of Labour to reply to the Debate. What I am talking about is the condition of the under-employed weavers and I say that it is the responsibility of the Government through one of its Departments to deal with that.

Mr. Brown: I make no complaint about that. It is my duty to answer for the Government and I am glad to do so because I say that the record of this Government is a record on the positive side of very great achievement. But the hon. Member turned on me in his last sentence and incidentally slipped in a blow at my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Kerr) about going back to Oldham and telling them that he had not been able to get anything. That shows that the hon. Member's point of view is entirely different from that which was put in the early part of the Debate by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street.

Mr. Silverman: I see no difference.

Mr. Brown: Let the House read and compare the speeches. I am content to abide by their judgment.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said he did not understand what had happened in the last four years. Let me

tell him. Not only have hon. Members on this side found other subjects to talk about but so have hon. Members on his own side. There was a time when there was scarcely an Adjournment day when unemployment was not the topic of discussion. I have had, I think, five successive Adjournment days free. Why? If I suggested that the hon. Gentleman and his friends had had Spanish fever for the last three years I should be making not only an inaccurate but an unfair retort. It is not because hon. Members on this side of the House are unaware of the unemployment problem but it is because circumstances have changed. When there is tension in this House it arises from one of two reasons—either because the internal arrangements of the House have not been wisely judged and arrangements have not been made with the usual celerity and good will, or because some great event has taken place outside which has had an immediate effect on the minds of Members here.

Mr. Lawson: I quite agree that the international situation has absorbed a good deal of time, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look up the events of the past month or two he will see that on a number of occasions this matter has been raised.

Mr. Brown: I know from my own experience that it has been raised plenty of times—I believe four times in regard to the Special Areas. I am making no complaint, but I do say that in the early part of my term as Minister I had to take part in Debates on Adjournment days as well as on other occasions. The only point I want to make to the hon. Member, who suggested that the House is insensitive, is that Members on his own side have had a great deal to say on other matters because they rightly choose what they think is the right subject in view of happenings in the world. Other things have been happening in the last four years; that is the trouble. The House knows that it is much more difficult to get discussion on some quiet, dull, unprovocative subject than on some passionate issue. For the first three years of my occupancy of my present position it was my good fortune almost consistently to see unemployment going down and employment going up. For seven consecutive months returns showed increased employment and decreased unemployment.


It is true that last year there was what President Roosevelt calls recession. That has affected both the areas that felt the crisis of 1929–32 and those which have not. It is not because of our insensitiveness. I beg the hon. Gentleman to realise, and I ask the House to realise. that it is because it is not quite so easy to debate with a Minister of Labour when returns of employment month by month are going in the right direction as it is when month after month they go in the wrong direction. I must take the rough with the smooth. I was fortunate in having many fine stories to tell and I must face the issues now.
In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) I would say, without entering into the hectic and difficult field of monetary policy, that he did indeed raise one of the greatest issues in the whole world—one which affects not only agriculture but the industrial world. I say that with the greatest frankness because when I was at the annual meeting of the International Labour Office a Geneva two years ago, I ventured to raise the same issue before the 50 nations assembled there. It is in my judgment the real issue of the recession. The moment you see prices of primary products decline steeply you must look for a general drop in manufacturing production. May I recommend my hon. Friend to look at the report of the Director of the International Labour Office for last year? He will find at the beginning of that report a chart on which are two lines. The first line shows a decline of manufacturing production in the years 1929–32. The line on the chart goes down steeply like the roof of a steep house. The second line goes almost straight across the chart with a few incidental waves up and down. That line represents primary production in the years 1932–33. The two lines show scarcely any decline in primary production but a heavy decline in manufactures. I said to my friend Mr. Harold Butler, the Director of the International Labour Office—he will be Director until 31st December—that in my judgment he would have done better service if he had added another line. That line would have shown the course of the prices of primary products in the same period. If that had been done there would have been a line going down a little more steeply than the decline of manufacturing production. By primary production I mean not only wheat

and meat and milk, but coal and all the primary products of the earth. There is the trouble.
At the last winter Adjournment, when I was faced with speakers on this problem, what was the theme of their speeches? Those who refresh their memories by looking at the records of last year will find that nearly all the speakers dealt with the cost of living. Just previous to that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) appeared at the Bar with a petition purporting to be signed by 1,000,000 people. What was that petition about? The cost of living. Workmen had been going to work, but their complaint was that the cost of living had risen by four, five or six points. I have not heard one single speaker in this Debate mention the cost of living. Why not? Because it has gone down to 155. That means that the relative value of all social services to our people is greater. There has been no word about the cost of living to-day, and quite naturally, but I think it is right that I should point that out.
What I want to draw to the attention of this House, as I did to the meeting of the International Labour Office, is that the important matter for the industrial world is whether the primary producers can maintain a higher level of reward. We have now in the world over 800,000,000 workers, who because of machines have a greater capacity and power than ever before in history, and potentially behind them, limited only by the skilled men who produce them, are yet more and bigger and better machines. It is a great service which my hon. Friend, whatever I may think about his monetary ideas, has rendered to the House in pointing out that that is vital with regard to unemployment. It is indeed so.
Let us consider the plight of our own unemployed. I have not given a figure yet; I am not delivering a speech "breaking up the figures," although I do not see why I should not do so, because it is not a fair representation to the world of the unemployment situation in this country to say there are 2,000,000 unemployed and to treat every unit in those 2,000,000 as if the condition of each of them was similar. It would be a gross mispresentation to pretend that the 1,800,000 unemployed on our register at the last count


are in precisely similar circumstances with the 2,000,000 of them six years ago. There have been very great changes. There has been a greater diversion of industry, and there have been great training undertakings by the Ministry of Labour. I reflect with some satisfaction on the fact that since the training schemes of the Ministry were started, some 100,000 men have been given semi-skill and are on the way to skill who had no skill before. That is a great achievement, and it is not the achievement of a Department which is stolid, unimaginative, and without feeling about the matter. It is canalising sentiment, putting it to work and expressing it in usefulness, putting it down in terms of the training centres, machinery and skilled instructors of a great exchange system, the greatest in the world, which links the man who wants the job with the job that wants the man, in so far as machinery can do it. These achievements are not to be belittled, because you find world problems at the moment so grave that the hon. Member's eloquence about them to-day was not misplaced.
I would have this House to understand that, although I am sometimes very quiet and am a fairly good-tempered man, a man's quietness is not to be judged by the fires that may burn within his spirit and his soul. Take this problem four years ago and the situation to-day. Lots of things have happened. There has rarely been a better feeling for the wellbeing and comfort of the people in terms of relief than in the last four years. I know there are hon. Members in this House who do not think the relief high enough. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out that it is higher than wages in parts of Lancashire. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] That may be, but that is not to belittle the effort which we are making. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in his own passionate way, put in a plea for a little extra, but he must not overlook the fact that I myself was the Minister of Labour who this very year, with the good will of all sections of the House, put on the Statute Book of this country for the first time in history a national system of extra winter allowances, and now half these long-term unemployed under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board are in receipt, on an average, of an extra 2s.

per week to meet the necessities of cold and heat.
These are achievements. It is very simple to say that it is only 2s., but when you are dealing with 2s. for hundreds of thousands of people, the House knows that it is a very great contribution. I will do what the hon. Member opposite asked me to do in this Recess, and I will read the latest things about this matter, because he knows, and none better, that if there is one man in the country who from time to time is in a position to know, not merely what the general picture is, but the facts about this area and that area, it is the Minister of Labour of the day. He knows quite well that there is no country in the world where the facts are more thrown into the open and more carefully analysed and brought before the public mind and conscience. I will do what the hon. Member says, but I would like him too to do something. Let him, before he goes home to-day, go into the Vote Office and ask for the latest return about the social services, and then sit down and study it. It is a very remarkable document.
The hon. Member said that he was very grateful for individual private good nature. I noted the phrase. It is a very fine thing that great organs of the Press should be organising funds, as one of them is doing, for the children in the Special Areas. There is a multitude of private efforts in this country. No country in the world is more generous in that way. The hon. Member overlooks the fact that this is not merely a country where private endeavour gives relief to such a large extent to the individual. It is the greatest country in the world for its public good nature. As Minister of Labour I answer in the House for one fund and administer another—the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Unemployment Assistance scheme. What has been the average in respect of which I have had to account for every penny going to the right men and women at the right time? It is £80,000,000 of public money per annum. That is not to be belittled. It is a great effort. I do not believe there is any country in the world which is doing that. The hon. Member pointed to New Zealand, but he did not point out, as I will now, that when both Australia and New Zealand desire to take a forward movement in social services they send to this country and the Ministry


of Labour for expert advice on how to do it.

Mr. Buchanan: They have done it better.

Mr. Brown: I would not say that. The hon. Member talks too quickly. There were people at Geneva a few years ago who told me that France had done the 40-hour week much better than we had, but I do not think they will say that now. I do not belittle what the Dominions have done, but there is another side of this question. I could speak for a long time, as I am doing to-day, without a note about this matter and about this return of the social services. They show that these services cost £500,000,000 a year. That is a great organised public effort; it is organised public good nature. It is not just to this country to suggest that we are insensitive to the needs of our unfortunate unemployed friends. We have grave and difficult problems, and if any man in this House is prepared to say that he knows of a single solution for them I do not envy him his mind. It must be a single-track mind unable to measure the whole problem.
What are we facing? We are facing a home scene rooted in the international scene. Every one of the great trades which provide us with the Special Areas is rooted in the international problem, such as coal, shipping, cotton. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne rebukes the Government for being insensitive to the cotton trade. He must be oblivious of the fact that there is not one industry, except coal, that has had more Parliamentary and Government notice in the last five years. At this moment discussions are taking place in Lancashire to see whether we can get a basis for a new Bill. Take the question of coal. The hon. Member talked about tariffs, but there is another side to that. There are areas in Durham, the east of Scotland and Northumberland that have had great benefits because of tariffs through the arrangements made with the Scandinavian market. Anyone who saw the dwindling of the total exports of Durham and Scotland before this agreement, which it was my pleasure to have some share in negotiating when I was at the Mines Department, will know the truth as to that.
As regards shipbuilding and shipping, the House will know that in the difficult

times experienced three years ago the Government did come to the aid of tramp shipping, and with success, and as to what the hon. Member for Gorbals has said, at this moment the shipping industry is on the point of reporting to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether it itself can do anything to meet the problem, which is international in character, or whether it will want assistance from the Government, and if so in what form. No, Sir, the unemployment problem is a grave problem, is a problem that causes all who have to deal with it grave anxiety, but it is a problem that differs from place to place. If the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is going to take the "Manchester Guardian" map and to treat those areas in the Highlands and Islands in precisely the same terms as he treats the areas in Lancashire, in Durham, in some parts of Yorkshire, and in Wales, he will make a very great mistake, because percentages of unemployment sometimes conceal things as well as reveal them.

Mr. Buchanan: They can be worked both ways.

Mr. Lawson: I did not suggest that the map was anything more than a general bird's-eye view.

Mr. Brown: I was anxious to make it clear that though some people might think the problem was the same, it is not. Not that it is not grave. There are points about it that give me and those who administer the Unemployment Fund grave cause for thought. A Scotsman told me the other day that he thought some of his friends up there were practising philately. I pass no judgment upon that.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not understand that reference.

Mr. Brown: Philately—stamp collecting. I mentioned it as showing what some Scotsmen think of the percentages there. If that is so it will be my duty, of course, to have the matter looked into

Mr. Buchanan: That should not be made a general charge against the Scottish people.

Mr. Brown: I only mentioned it as one Scotsman's opinion and to show the hon. Member that these maps sometimes conceal things as well as reveal them. The


problem is the problem of coal, cotton, shipbuilding, of the contraction of the older industries. In the last four years to which the hon. Member referred we have had more than one change, because there has been not merely a contraction of industries, but a good deal of constructive work has been done in the interest of those whose services are no longer wanted in those industries. I have already referred to training centres and to the work done there, and I think that very rarely in the history of this country could more public works have been undertaken by the central Government and the local authorities at any given time. I will not repeat the figures, but will remind the House of the capital sums which I mentioned in my speech last March. They amounted to nearly £300,000,000 per annum; and, as we have been reminded in more than one speech from the benches opposite, there is also the vast sum which is being spent upon defence works, quite apart from the capital works to which I referred.
No, Sir, the fact is that a relief of tension in the international scene, international co-operation such as that which we are now getting between France and ourselves in the matter of coal, and an extension of the agreement between Poland and our own Mining Association with regard to the export trade—all those are the things that would make a difference. Even then we have to face the fact that there is a decline in demand not merely because of competition from countries which have taken to making their products—or to digging them—but on account of the competition of other fuels with coal. It is, indeed, a problem which has come upon us with speed and swiftness and which will not yield to any single remedial measure.
A question was put to me by the hon. Member for Gorbals about housing conditions in Scotland and I would not finish this speech to-day without saying something about that subject. The hon. Member will know that whereas our housing efforts have been a tremendous success in England, there has not been quite the same degree of success in Scotland. He will know also that one of the main problems there is the problem of labour. Four years ago there was, as you could see in the Scottish papers day after day, a denial that there was a

shortage of skilled labour in Scotland, yet we have not been able to do in Scotland on behalf of the unemployed Scotsman what we can do in England for the unemployed Englishman. Here we can train him for the building trade. We can train the unemployed Scotsman in Glasgow for the building trade also, but we cannot place him in Scotland because of the objection which is taken by the trade unions.
I can tell the hon. Member that the Secretary of State and I have been able to get an agreement with both sides of the industry to add a proportion of apprentices to the skilled men. That agreement has been arrived at with good will and is working. The hon. Member no doubt knows that there were 5,300 bricklayers in Scotland last year and that the October figure showed that there were only about 70 adult bricklayers unemployed.

Mr. Quibell: How many are there in England?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member is familiar with Scottish housing conditions he will know that the problem there is different from the housing problem in England. When the big housing boom began there was a shortage of houses in Scotland, but the shortage there is intensified because overcrowding has been far greater than in England. It is not merely overcrowding in small houses but overcrowding in very great tenements, strongly and finely built as they were, some a century and others 80 years ago. Housing costs and other factors that have to be considered in the construction of houses also increase the problem. Nevertheless, of the 5,300 bricklayers, there were only 70 unemployed at the October count, and they were accounted for by men who were moving from job to job.
Inquiry has been made of local authorities, and the result shows that 900 more bricklayers are required for existing local authority schemes. I understand that last year there were 600 unsatisfied applications for bricklayers at the Employment Exchanges in Scotland. The hon. Member for Gorbals is passionate on this matter—those who represent Scottish divisions will understand his passion just as we understand the passion of the Lancashire Members on the subject of unemployment—and he asked about the building of 250,000 houses in seven years. That


would probably require an increase of the 5,300 bricklayers to nearly 9,000. How do the Government look at the matter? In the Special Areas the Housing Associations have decided to build 5,000 houses. Under the new Act they are empowered to build another 20,000 in the Special Areas and 8,500 outside the Special Areas, making a total of 33,500 houses, to be built by alternative methods, such as timber and concrete. These will give work to a great many unskilled men. It may be possible, when we come to tackle the practical problem of putting up the houses under the new scheme, that we shall find a continual shortage of bricklayers and also a shortage of joiners and plasterers.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman told me that an arrangement had been come to with the bricklayers for an increase in apprentices; can he tell me whether the extra apprentices have been taken on and how far the scheme is working?

Mr. Brown: I think it is one to three, instead of one to four.

Mr. Buchanan: I want to know the effect of it.

Mr. Brown: I cannot tell the hon. Member that now, but I will send him a statement as soon as I can. If I remember rightly, the actual proportion, instead of one to four, as it used to be, is one to three.
I am afraid I have already taken too long, but there is a great deal more that could be said. I beg the House to understand that we sympathise with those hon. Members in all parts of the House who desire to see quicker action in getting the unemployed back to work. We have looked upon the experiment in the Special Areas with the greatest possible interest. There is still some prejudice against what are regarded as new-fangled industries. Old traditions die very hard, not only among employers, but among workers too. We shall, however, continue our endeavours to see that the distribution of industry becomes more diversified in those areas which for too long have been dependent upon one or more industries which were more or less hereditary there, and which are now so badly suffering from the reactions due to alterations in industrial practice, the coming of the

machine, and the tension in the international situation, together with the unstable primary price level.
I cannot give an answer to the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street as to when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Location of Industry will be published, but I can assure him that there will be no undue delay, and then, as he knows, the issues will be set out. He said that the Royal Commission was clogged with evidence, and the evidence is not of one kind only. There is the evidence that was given on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, and I would interpose here the observation that for that evidence I bear the responsibility. The responsibility does not rest on the shoulders of any Civil Servant; it is the Minister's responsibility. When people talk in an airy, casual way about compelling this and compelling that, I would remind them that the late Commissioner for the Special Areas said in one of his reports that, while it is one thing to debar an industry from going to a place, it is an entirely different thing to direct that industry to go there. This country will be a happy country when it can find all its unemployed people full employment, not by means such as have been taken in some other countries, but by means in line with its own traditions; and if, when next Christmas comes, we find that the Minister of Labour is not here to debate the subject because the employment figures have risen and the unemployment figures have fallen, the whole House and the whole country will be grateful and happy.

DRUG TRAFFIC, FAR EAST.

3.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) apologised at a late hour last night to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for having kept him out of his bed for the third night in succession. I myself apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have delayed his starting upon a well-earned holiday. No doubt many officials of the Foreign Office also are looking forward to their holiday. I mention that because I ask a great many questions on Foreign Office matters, although I never ask one merely for the sake of doing so, and I know that those questions involve a great deal of additional work for a staff which must already be very hard at it,


although they now have the benefit of the assistance of an official from the Ministry of Labour to help them with the more responsible work of the office. I should like to make my acknowledgment for my share of the work imposed. I admire the ability with which the hon. Gentleman answers the questions put to him, more especially when he is compelled to evade or suppress the point at issue and thank him for his courtesy and for coming here.
To-day I want to raise some matters which arise out of the work of the Advisory Committee on Drugs at Geneva, matters which, the Advisory Committee says in its report,
give cause to the entire world for serious apprehension.
If I have to refer to somewhat sensational matters it is not in the least because I wish to make a sensational affair out of these matters—indeed, I shall only refer to official reports—but the facts are so sensational that it is not possible to avoid dealing with them in that manner.
The position arises out of the fact that the Treaty of Versailles places the general supervision of the drug traffic in the hands of the League of Nations. Arising out of that responsibility, there was a plan devised by the Bangkok Conference in 1931 which by 1937 had been ratified by 61 countries, including Japan. This plan was that a Central Supervisory Body was set up, which has a British chairman, to which countries submit estimates of the medical and scientific but not of Governmental requirements of drugs. The subsequent manufacture of drugs is, I presume, supposed to be roughly in accordance with those requirements. It is a plan which has many imperfections, but it does mark a great advance, and, if administered honestly and with good will, it would be very effective. That good will has been shown to be generally forthcoming from the nations of the world, but year after year statements at Geneva show that the Japanese Government have not shown good will in this matter.
The British delegate at Geneva has said that
information at the disposal of his Government tended to confirm the view of the United States delegate that the situation was such as to cause grave anxiety to the rest of the world. The situation had grown worse and the Committee could only ask the Japanese Government to do all in their power to suppress the horrible traffic in drugs

which, the British delegate said,
was so alarming as to constitute a menace to the rest of the world.
The Indian delegate—and India has a great interest in this matter—referring to Japan, said:
year after year the indictment had been drawn up in ever increasing detail; year after year the policy of the responsible Government"—
that is, Japan—
had been declared to be one of co-operation. The only change in the actual situation appeared to be one for the worse.
The Chinese delegate—and China is a member of the League of Nations, and we, as a fellow-member, are pledged to assist her in all proper matters—spoke about
the poisoning of the Chinese population in all the parts of China to which Japanese influence penetrates.
He went on:
we can fairly say that Japan is combining with her military invasion of China an invasion by drugs which is just as deadly
and again
in Chinese territory subject to Japanese influence the production and consumption of drugs are not merely tolerated but encouraged by the Japanese military authorities. In Nanking, where the Chinese Government had succeeded in abolishing opium, drugs have been openly sold since the Japanese occupation. The Japanese concessions in China constitute centres of illicit traffic. Manchuria and Jehol have been transformed into a regular narcotics arsenal. Japanese consulates have acted as distribution centres for drugs. Japanese lorries transport drugs ail over China.
And in connection with that sinister work of the Japanese Army the American delegate referred to
huge quantities of opium, reliably reported to have arrived in Shanghai, consigned to the Japanese Army.
The Japanese delegate, very naturally, was compelled to make some reply to these statements at Geneva, but it is fair to say that his reply was laughed aside by the other delegates. The only good point in it is that he did admit his Government's obligations in this matter. The reply, however, was considered "inadequate," and the other delegates, including the British delegate, passed a resolution reiterating that the situation in China was deteriorating under Japanese influence and which called upon the Governments concerned to take vigorous action to remedy the situation in the Far East.


We are one of the Governments concerned, and I ask the hon. Gentleman, what is the vigorous action which we are taking in accordance with that resolution? The Foreign Office, I know, admits the gravity of the situation. We have had replies to questions on the subject which show that the Foreign Office has the matter under close consideration and that it is willing to take any steps to check the traffic in co-operation with any Government. Year after year the experts at Geneva, including Great Britain's experts, issue warnings of this world evil being fostered by Japanese influence. The Japanese Government are charged with fostering traffic in morphine, heroin and opium not merely for consumption in China, but for export all over the world, including the Dominion of Canada. The Canadian delegate spoke of the flood of drugs from the Far East and said that Canada was suffering the consequences,
they had for some years been heavy sufferers from the narcotic situation in the Far East.
Consider the situation in Hong Kong. The local government there cannot cope with the traffic. There are between 2,000 and 3,000 opium and heroin dens in Hong Kong, upwards of 300,000 opium or heroin pills are consumed daily, and there are 40,000 opium addicts there. That is the situation in Hong Kong. The Japanese Government have also failed to penalise the Japanese smuggling of cocaine into India, a matter of most urgent importance to us.
All this is no new story. It has been brought out repeatedly at Geneva by the head of the Narcotics Bureau, Sir Thomas Russell, an official whose work and services in this matter, I feel, have never received the full recognition that is due to them although I know that a somewhat belated honour has recently been awarded him. He is a man who has done wonderful work. I have seen him described as that rare being—a man who is the master as well as the servant of his office. He has fought his campaign with the gay ruthlessness which wins a forlorn hope. He certainly has powers of narrative which bring his work home to the mind. Sir Thomas Russell said as long ago as 1936:—
The fact is now beyond dispute that the world source of illicit white drugs is in areas under direct or indirect Japanese control. After many years of hard work the League of

Nations has closed down all the European sources of illicit drugs only to be threatened by mass heroin export from the Far East.
As the leaks are stopped up and dammed in the West, so the traffickers move out to the East.
In 1937 he said:
The world supply of heroin to-day is coming, through the Suez Canal, from the Far East. The extent of heroin manufactured in Manchuria can only be described as staggering.
In 1936, after that passage to which I have referred, Sir Thomas went on to speak of the good work of the League being undone and the world repoisoned
for the monetary profit of a mob of rascals living under the protection of the political chaos of the Far East.
That mob of rascals to whom Sir Thomas Russell referred enjoys the active support of the Japanese Government, a Government of poisoners. That is the simple position. The good work that the League has done is being undone by one nation, and that nation is Japan, which is charged with fostering illicit drug traffic throughout the world, and with using drugs as an instrument of policy to promote the degradation of the Chinese. If those charges, which have been repeatedly made, are true, and so far they have gone uncontradicted, I would ask, How far we can call Japan a civilised nation? I have never greatly admired the British slogan that trade follows the flag, but I prefer it to that of the Japanese that drugs follow the flag.
The Japanese reap a two-fold benefit from this drug traffic. The revenue they draw from the drugs helps them to defray the cost of their aggression upon China, and the use of the drugs demoralises the Chinese upon whom they force them. Pestilence and war are historically associated, but it has been left to the Japanese to find a way of making pestilence pay for war. If Gilbert were writing the "Mikado" to-day, he would have to make the Wandering Minstrel sing:
Where'er our country's banner may be planted,
All decency and honour are defied.
Drug-taking was once common in Japan, but it was suppressed by rigorous laws. Japan knows what is good for herself. All the more shame that she fosters this drug traffic in China. It is interesting to note that almost the only restriction that is imposed on the drug racketeers


by the Japanese Government is that they must not sell to the Japanese fighting forces. While that restriction is imposed they are deliberately promoting the degradation of the Chinese by forcing upon them more powerful drugs than opium, and using those drugs as an instrument of policy to undermine Chinese manpower, and sharing in the profits of the trade. It is a ghastly crime against international decency to drench another nation with drugs in this fashion.
In the 1937 invasion every town taken by the Japanese immediately became an open market for drugs. Drug shops, dens and pedlars all arrived with the Japanese Army. Every means are being taken to promote drug taking in China. The poor can get drugs on credit. Drug saloons are everywhere. The Central Japanese Opium Companies have opened chain agencies throughout the country. Japanese newspapers advertise drugged pills as longevity pills. Japanese police are seen on duty regulating the queues outside the drug saloons. Cigarettes are made up with heroin in them, without the fact being stated, in order to create the habit. Medicine containing these harmful drugs are sold at village fairs as a cure for tuberculosis. Touts, cabarets, brothels, women pedlars, are all employed to foster the traffic. You can have your drug supplied along with your milk and your newspapers. Opium and other narcotics are forced upon non-addicts. Chinese workers have even been forced to receive part of their wages in drugs. This business is in the hands of Japanese and Korean rings working in close touch with the Japanese Government and making huge profits. Heroin costing £5 per lb. to manufacture may be sold at anything up to £1,500 per lb., the profits are very great indeed. In Manchuria and Jehol the annexation was immediately followed by the establishment of an opium monopoly. Laws were enacted to secure to the Government a monopoly of the profits from drugs. I have spoken of profits. Sir Thomas Russell has stated that in 181 cities in Manchuria and Jehol there are 3,840 licensed opium dens and 8,400 heroin dens, and each one of them pays £15 a month for a licence, which gives an annual revenue of nearly £2,250,000—to the Government from that source alone.
Mr. Fuller, the United States delegate,
speaking of conditions, said:
The province of Hopei has become the seat of the world's most extensive manufacture of heroin. The conditions in Pekin, Tientsin and Eastern Hopei are beyond description. The traffic is engineered and controlled by Japanese and Koreans. In 1935 in Manchuria nearly 6,000 died of addiction.
Sir Thomas Russell says:
The Japanese Concession in Tientsin is now known as the nerve centre of heroin manufacture of the world. The dens number well over 1,000. Not less than 200 heroin factories are scattered over the concession, which is about four miles square. New factories are starting daily. The factories are working perfectly openly. It is from here that not only the Chinese but all other countries of the world are being debauched. The Japanese Government is at present controlled by the Army clique, and it is the Army which has fostered this deliberate demoralisation. The Japanese policy shows that, given a sufficiently base motive, the government of a great Power can lend itself in cold blood to the poisoning of the people it rules.
As regards poisoning it is a shocking commentary that the Japanese authorities have stopped anti-narcotic hospital work. Sir Thomas Russell, speaking of Tientsin, which has two trusts exporting heroin and where the world traffickers meet publicly to buy and ship their cargoes, quotes an eyewitness, who says:
Words fail when I attempt to describe the revolting and terrible conditions. The dens are dark, the scenes ghastly, children of two and three years old already drug addicts, with swollen heads. The injections are done with dirty syringes, the needles are never disinfected or changed, syphilis is freely spread from one addict to another. I have seen addicts with their chests a mass of gangrenous flesh, and it is into these putrefying, barely living bodies that the needles of dope are alternately pushed.
It is out of these conditions that the Japanese Government raise revenue.
The matter has been taken up in the columns of the "Times," which said that the action of the Japanese Government
paralysed the efforts of the Chinese Government in repressing the illicit traffic and rendered inoperative in advance any effort made by the League of Nations.
I quote two more most significant
passages from the "Times," which we would do well to bear in mind:
When the Northern Chinese have been demoralised and impoverished the manufacturers of heroin will no doubt send consignments to poison richer peoples in other countries.
and
the danger to other countries if this vast production of narcotics is allowed to continue unchecked need hardly be emphasised.


As a commentary on this the "Times" might well have quoted a statement by the Japanese delegate to Geneva, who said:
We are a nation of Samurai. With us honour is more important than anything else.
Well I do not know the language, but I imagine that "Samurai" is Japanese for dope peddlers. The civilised nations of the world are trying to stamp out this illicit traffic in drugs, with all the horror and degradation that that traffic spells. One nation, and one nation alone, in the world, labours to extend the traffic, and that nation is Japan, a nation which boasts of a ruler descended from the gods, and pursuing the foulest campaign imaginable.
I appeal to the Under-Secretary to give this matter his personal attention. He has had Ministerial connection with India, his Noble Friend has been an illustrious Viceroy of India; they are, therefore, in a position to appreciate the dangers of the consequences of Japanese policy. The spread of white drugs in India would be terrible to contemplate. The half-starved, over-worked millions there, suffering from debilitating tropical diseases, are very prone to the temptation of a little ease from their miseries. This problem is a serious one in relation to India. I ask for an answer from the Minister which will condemn in no uncertain terms the policy of fostering the drug traffic and express determination to prevent the spread of the evil to British spheres of influence; and I hope that our Ambassador at Tokyo may be instructed to explain to the Japanese Government the disastrous effects upon British public opinion in relation to Anglo-Japanese relations of the matters to which I have called attention to-day.

3.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I feel sure that the House will have been impressed by the sincerity of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) in bringing this subject before the House this afternoon. His Majesty's Government view with grave concern the drug situation such as it was described by the Opium Advisory Committee last June and reviewed by the League of Nations this autumn. I will give to the House the information that we have derived from

various parts of the Far East. I think that this will indicate the extent of the growth of the drug traffic in the Far East, and I hope that it will give an indication of the extent to which we think responsibility should be attached to any particular quarter. One very serious feature of the growth of the traffic has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and that is the growth in the use of heroin. The use of opium in itself is a terrible and gripping vice, but heroin is something far more serious. I expect the House will remember the manner in which the De Quincey contrasts the difference between the use of alcohol and the use of opium. He says:
The pleasure given by wine is always rapidly mounting and tending to a crisis, after which as rapidly it declines. That from opium, when once generated, is stationary for eight or ten hours. The one is a flickering flame, the other a steady and equable glow.
We must remember the difficulty which De Quincey had in escaping from this terrible vice, and therefore we may take it that he did not exaggerate his feeling of the glow which he derived from it on occasions. When we consider heroin and the terrible effect it has on its victims—how they tremble and shake—and the deplorable condition which is immediately produced by this drug and which breaks down all the barriers of morality and leads to the most terrible acts; when we realise from our information that this heroin is getting a greater hold upon the youth in the Far East—youths even of the age of 12—we can understand the grave extent of the problem which faces us.
Before I indicate the information that we have on the subject in relation to the Far East, I would like to describe the action that was taken at the League of Nations this autumn. I would like here to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) who represented this country on the committee which considered the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs. I should also like to reinforce the tribute paid by the hon. and gallant Member to Sir Thomas Russell for the work he has done in this connection. Hon. Members will have seen from the White Paper which was presented to the House on 19th December (Command Paper 5899), that the hon. Member for Wallsend said at the League that there was much ground for satisfaction in the steady progress of the


League's work for the control of the opium traffic, and that this work had been of a pioneering character. She drew attention to the fact that the number of annual reports from Governments had increased very considerably and went on to support the final resolution which was passed and which has been sent to various Governments including His Majesty's Government.
The committee was asked to address an urgent appeal to the Japanese Government and proposed a resolution stating that the Assembly had taken note of the report of the Seventh Committee relating to the illicit traffic in the Far East, particularly in the areas of China under the control of the Japanese forces, and noting that the situation had grown worse during the past year; that the Assembly associated itself with the resolution adopted by the Advisory Committee at its twenty-second and twenty-third sessions, and with the appeals made therein to the Governments concerned. That resolution was sent from the League in the autumn of this year to various Governments, and it has been received by His Majesty's Government. The matter is having our immediate attention. I go further than the word "consideration" which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used and say that it is having our immediate attention. We are in communication with the other Governments and not only those Governments which are members of the League and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the matter will not only have my personal attention but the close personal attention of my Noble Friend, both for the reasons to which he referred, and also because of the gravity of the issue itself.
So much for the action taken at Geneva and the immediate attention which is being given to the problem by His Majesty's Government. I am able to tell the House that a further step is being taken. There was signed in 1936 an Anglo-Japanese Drug Traffic Agreement. It was not possible to take definite action on that Agreement until the autumn of this year when we arranged for closer co-operation between His Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers and similar representatives of the Japanese Government. Our officers have been instructed to co-operate with the appropriate

Japanese authorities by mutually communicating information regarding the proceedings and movements of persons known to be engaged in the illicit drug traffic. This new co-operation has just been put in motion, and although it may not amount to an immediate solution of this grave problem, it does at least mean that we are in closer touch with the representatives of Japan, and that we shall thus be able to make clear the gravity which we attach to the matter. I trust that any information which may emerge from these contacts will help us to arrive more quickly at some satisfactory decision.
Let me give a short review of the position to which I referred in my opening remarks. From the information in the possession of my Noble Friend there is no evidence that the increased drug traffic in China is the outcome of any deliberate plan on the part of the Japanese Government, or that it is aimed at the systematic demoralisation of the Chinese people. I think the diagnosis which most correctly fits this extremely serious position is somewhat as follows. The reports which we have received from North China seem to confirm the statements made at the meeting of the Opium Advisory Committee last June. In North China, before the Japanese occupation in 1937, an attempt was being made by the Chinese Central Government to enforce the drastic opium and narcotic laws which had been promulgated by them in 1935. There were indications that they were to some extent being successful. They had reached a position in which an attempt was being made to carry out stiff enactments against these drugs.
Since the Japanese occupation of this region these deterrents, whether they were in the form of legislation or ordinances, or whatever you like to call them, have to a large extent disappeared, so that the position seems to us to have become worse. That, I think, is a correct diagnosis which explains the trouble which we are going through at the present time. To take an example, in February, 1938, Government ordinances were repealed by the Peking Provisional Government and in May it was announced that the Peking Consolidated Tax Administration had decided to allow the opening of 300 opium dens. That is an example of the extent of the growth of the traffic. On the other hand, certain ordinances have been issued


by the Provisional Government for the control of the traffic, the effect of which it is not yet possible to estimate, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we shall watch the effects of the new ordinances of the Provisional Government. I am bound to give the House the information in my possession, and it appears to us that since the formal repeal of the Chinese Government's ordinances opium pipes and smoking accessories appear to be offered for sale openly at stalls and markets in the Chinese city of Peking. Innumerable drug shops were opened until at the present time there is scarcely a street without one or more shops where drugs may be obtained and even indulged in as well.
As regards Manchuria, my Noble Friend has no definite information other than the published budget figures for 1938 which indicate that the amount of opium handled by the monopoly has increased. It is recently reported that new ordinances aimed at the control of the narcotic trade have been issued, but it is as yet too early to state how they will operate. A report on the drug situation in Manchuria has been called for from His Majesty's representatives, as I think I informed the House in answer to one of the many questions to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. The position in Central China does not appear so serious. Ordinances have recently been promulgated by the Nanking Provincial Government aiming at the control of the drug traffic, but again I am not able to give the House any definite information as to their likely result. Taken together with the information which I gave the House about heroin, I think hon. Members will see that there has been a definite increase in various parts of the Far East, that there have been some ordinances passed but that the repeal of the previous ordinances of the Chinese Government has resulted, in our view, in an increase in the traffic. The actual increase in the traffic in heroin chiefly emanates from the City of Tientsin. Trade in this drug is largely confined to Korean pedlars who have followed in the wake of the Japanese armies, but my Noble Friend has no information as to the attitude of the Japanese military authorities to this trade. In other towns in North China it appears that there has also been an increase in this traffic, but, as I said, the main source of the drug is Tientsin.
So much for the general review of conditions in the Far East in relation to the drug traffic. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that I have given him the facts as far as we have them in answer to the rather lurid and terrible picture which he was obliged to paint. He asked me whether the British Ambassador would make a protest to the Japanese authorities. I trust he will have observed the reference in the course of my remarks to our attitude in this matter. We have preferred the international approach, the method of collective action. We believe that in this matter of the drug traffic there is a real opportunity for the League of Nations, and we do not intend that that opportunity shall be lost. We intend to continue our close examination of the matter, and wherever possible, in company with other Governments, to use the international method, and, we hope, to solve this terrible problem. When we discuss this subject, and when we realise the terrible toll which this drug takes on so many people in the Far East, let us remember the difficulties of a man who did escape from the power of opium, De Quincey himself, who said:
I did accomplish my escape. I triumphed. But infer not, reader, from this word triumphed' a condition of joy or exultation. Think of me as one, even when four months had passed, still agitated, writhing, throbbing, palpitating, shattered; and much perhaps in the situation of him who has been racked.
Many of these victims have been on the rack, and the Governments of the world feel shattered themselves by the immensity of the problem. It is our wish now to escape.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I would like to draw the attention of the House to a question which affects our own country, namely, the question of the provision or the non-provision of bomb-proof shelters. I make no apology for raising this matter this afternoon, because I think that any person who watches the international horizon at the present time must realise the vital importance of providing for the defence of the civilian population of our own country if, unhappily, this country of ours is ever attacked. This is no new question. I find that as far back as 1st March, 1937, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reply to a


question addressed to him with regard to the provision of public shelters, replied:
The question of the provision of refuges for persons caught in the street when a raid is imminent is under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1937; col. 36, Vol. 321.]
So far as I can gather, the question of public shelters remained under consideration until our country was faced with the crisis in September last, and then, as the House well knows, trenches were dug in different parts of the country in a last-minute attempt to provide a measure of protection for the civilian population in the eventuality of war taking place. Yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal in the course of his statement, again referred to public shelters, and said that for persons caught in the streets when an air raid comes, communal shelters will be provided, either in trenches or other forms of communal shelter to be provided by the local authorities. Twelve months ago to-day the Air-Raid Precautions Act came into force, and that Act imposed an obligation on local authorities to provide protection for persons and property in the event of air raids. This morning the Lord Privy Seal, in reply to a question, stated that, so far as he was aware, not a single public shelter which could be called truly bomb-proof had been erected in any part of the country.
I hope that what I have to say will not be taken in any way as a criticism of the Lord Privy Seal himself. He has just taken over what I think is perhaps to-day the most responsible Department of State, and I am sure that most hon. Members will only regret that he was not appointed 12 months ago. I do not think the same can be said with regard to his predecessors in relation to air-raid precautions. I believe that I am not guilty of any exaggeration when I say that their responsibility constitutes a serious reflection upon them, because of their inertia and the inertia of the Government in relation to this vital problem.
What is the position? Under the 1937 Act the obligation was placed upon the local authorities to provide shelters or whatever form of air-raid protection they thought was desirable. That is an impossible obligation for the local authorities. Experts have put forward various estimates as to the amount that would

be required to cover the cost of providing a nation-wide system of aerial defence. I have seen figures rising to £500,000,000 or £600,000,000. If that be so, I should have thought that, even though the Chancellor of the Exchequer were prepared to find three-quarters of the expenditure of local authorities on air-raid precautions, it is a liability which the nation should face. We are spending roughly £2,000,000,000 on the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, and most people will agree that the defence of the civilian population constitutes our fourth line of defence.
Therefore, it is an expenditure which may have to be faced by the community. It is an impossible burden to place on the local authorities. The system of grants-in-aid is inadequate for the purpose. In Westminster a penny rate produces £40,000, but in Bermondsey, Poplar or any of the East End boroughs it produces only £3,000 or£4,000. How can it be expected that a local authority such as Poplar or Bermondsey can provide a sufficient system of defence against air attack if it has to pay for it out of rates? The Government must be responsible financially and otherwise for providing shelters which shall be proof against bomb attack. By all means let the local authorities be used as the executive agents of the Government. As to the need for bomb-proof shelters, I should have thought that the experience of other countries had put it beyond any dispute that they are necessary for the defence of the civilian population. Protection against direct hits should be provided for all persons who are compelled in war-time to live in highly dangerous areas—dock areas, the East End of London, and wherever large aggregations of population exist. That provision, of course, would be side by side with the evacuation of those persons who are not essential to the defence of the country.
I suggest that what has been done in Barcelona affords a very good illustration, on a lesser scale, of what we shall have to do. I read the other day a remarkable address by Mr. Helsby to the Institute of Structural Engineers in which he dealt with the problem of defence against bombing attacks. He said that in Barcelona less than a year ago the number of deaths arising from air raids was never less than several hundreds per raid, but that now, although raids have


increased in severity, it took half a ton of high explosives to kill one person. Between 5th December and 10th December casualties were reduced to approximately two killed and ten injured, and he said that in the view of the authorities in Barcelona the credit for this drastic reduction was due to the air-raid precautions arrangements. We are often told that cellars may provide a good defence against bombing attacks. In Barcelona the authorities apparently do not now regard cellars as sufficient to safeguard the civilian population from high explosive bombs, and after many persons had been buried for days under the debris cellars were forbidden as shelters.
The experiences which the population of Barcelona have recently undergone have led to the view being formed that bomb-proof shelters are essential to the safety of the population, and they are being provided by the authorities. As I understand it, they are constructed under the streets, and close together, so that no one need be more than 200 yards away from the entrance to one of them. The method most favoured is the deeptunnelling system. Tunnels are constructed at a depth of 45 feet, and are connected together by long galleries. In the open spaces, the parks and squares are refuges provided for people caught in the streets. These are, of course, much shallower and are constructed with many layers of reinforced concrete sufficient to give protection against heavy bombs. These shelters apparently have accommodation for from 700 to 7,000 persons; and I gather that shelters have been constructed for at least half the population of Barcelona. By these methods, supplemented by evacuation, the problem of defending London and our other centres of population could be solved.
As I said before, I make no apology for raising this question to-day in view of the international situation. We must realise that Greater London, with its population of more than 8,000,000 people, and other cities in this small island of ours, are within easy range of bombing attacks, and I suggest that the provision of defence is an urgently vital problem which the Government must tackle. It has been under consideration for more than two years, and I hope the Government will realise that if it is left to the local authorities then in three months from now we shall be very much where we are to-day.

It is an impossible financial burden. It is a problem that is national in scope and should be national in its responsibility. It is unfair to ask the various local authorities throughout the country to incur a financial burden which may run up to £100,000,000 or £200,000,000, and for the county area of London itself, even with financial assistance from the Government as provided under the Act of 1937, may amount to as much as £50,000,000. It is now generally accepted that the main object of an air attack is to cause panic and to demoralise the civilian population. By giving adequate protection to the civilian population I believe that the sting can be taken out of air attack.
This is a matter of extreme urgency. In the nature of things a national system of shelters will take a considerable time to build. Admittedly nothing has been done during the last 12 months. The Lord Privy Seal said that no bomb-proof shelters have been constructed up to date. That means that those which are in existence are private and in an emergency might have notices put on them saying "strictly private." That will not be a very happy state of affairs if we are involved in war. I hope that the Government, through the able and energetic Minister who is now responsible, will tackle the problem immediately. At the same time, I do not accept the inevitability of war, but I suggest that peace cannot be made permanent through fear of war and its consequences. The world has to construct a peace system based upon law and justice. To-day the world is faced again with the threat and challenge of force. If this country is to maintain its freedom and accept its responsibility, the one consideration of paramount importance is that we should ensure our fourth line of defence, namely, that the fullest possible protection should be given to our men, women and children from that most terrible of modern instruments of warfare, the bombing aeroplane.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House and the country some information additional to the statement which he made yesterday as to what he contemplates possible and practicable in the organisation of our air defences for the purpose of protecting our civilian population, not merely by the strengthening of basements and cellars of private


houses but in regard to those problems that confront the East End of London. There, I believe, only a tunnelling system will be able to cope with the problem of providing places of refuge for the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of men and women who will be out in the streets about their ordinary business. These things will have to be done, unless we are to accept the view that in the event of war the dangers of aerial attack will be so great that our industrial life will be brought to a standstill because it will be impossible to provide sufficient security. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw a little more light upon the statement which he made yesterday.

4.24 p.m.

Viscount Wolmer: I am glad that the hon. Member has, by raising this subject, given us the opportunity of discussing one or two statements made by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday and of bringing out some points which should be ventilated at the earliest opportunity. I want to say at once to my right hon. Friend and to the House that I am connected with the cement industry, and so my views in regard to the respective merits of concrete and steel in A.R.P. work may perhaps be regarded as prejudiced. Nevertheless I think it desirable to raise a point which is somewhat on the lines of that which the hon. Member has raised. I do not think anyone would deny that, if your intention is to prop up ceilings, steel sheets are a very suitable material, but surely the Lord Privy Seal is aware that that was tried at Barcelona two years ago, and was abandoned because the casualties were so enormous. Now, as the hon. Member has told the House, the city of Barcelona has gone in entirely for the system of real underground shelters made of reinforced concrete. My information is that sufficient accommodation has been so provided for 30 per cent. of the population of Barcelona, and that within a few months' time they hope to have accommodation for 100 per cent. If the little city of Barcelona can do this, surely the great city of London can do the same, and ought to do the same.
I want to ask the Government whether it is really wise to adopt a system which has been discarded in actual practice in Spain, and which has not been adopted by either France or Germany, or, so far as I am aware, by any of the other great

European countries, which have all gone in for deep underground shelters built with reinforced concrete. When my right hon. Friend speaks about the steel lean-to's that are going to be erected alongside the poorest type of houses, surely that is going to give no sort of adequate protection against the blast of a high-explosive bomb. I am not asking for protection against a direct hit. I think that possibly the Lord Privy Seal is right in saying that the time it would take to give full protection against a direct hit renders that course inadvisable at the present moment; he wants to do something in a hurry. But these steel lean-to shelters, sunk two feet in the earth, with the displaced earth built around them, would, I am informed, give no protection against the blast of a bomb that fell within 50 or 60 yards.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I do not want to interrupt my Noble Friend, but his description "lean-to" is wholly inappropriate.

Viscount Wolmer: They are adjacent to—

Sir J. Anderson: They are not lean-to's.

Viscount Wolmer: They are only sunk two feet in the earth, as I understood my right hon. Friend—he will correct me if I am wrong—and the displaced earth is built around them. Is that correct?

Sir J. Anderson: I said they would be sunk as deep as might be thought advisable, but the engineers who have been consulted have in fact represented that they should be sunk about two feet.

Viscount Wolmer: I hope that my right hon. Friend has consulted engineers who were conversant with what has happened in Barcelona and Madrid, and other cities that have experienced aerial bombardment on an extensive scale. There is also another point of public importance, and that is with regard to the question of speed. I understand that these steel sheets cannot be provided in less than several weeks time; they have to be manufactured; whereas there are unlimited quantities of sand, ballast and cement available, which would enable reinforced concrete work to be got on with immediately, without any delay at all. I would point out, also, that reinforced concrete uses a great deal of steel as well as of these other commodities.


If my right hon. Friend's object is to help the unemployment problem in the steel industry, I would point out that there is also unemployment in the cement and other industries. I am not in the least arguing against using steel when it is suitable, but I hope he will not regard himself as wedded to one particular material, especially when all other countries are using reinforced concrete. The Government ought to make use of all available material to get this protection done as soon as possible. Surely we must regard this A.R.P. business in future as a permanent feature of our national life. Supposing this particular menace of to-day, the particular dictators we are thinking about, were removed, the menace of air raids will continue; and nowadays, for the rest of the twentieth century, houses must be built and towns provided with the means of defence against aerial attack, which may occur at very short notice. Therefore, we have to treat this as a permanent problem, and that ought to be borne in mind. Concrete is the most permanent material known to science, and it requires no maintenance, as steel does.
I do not know whether the Government will consider another suggestion I have to make as a possible contribution towards the problem. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will not regard his Department entirely as a watertight compartment, because it seems to me that he might possibly be able to help solve two great problems at the same time. The provision of great underground tunnels in London might be a contribution towards the solution of the traffic problem. If we had great arterial roadways running under London, East and West, and others running North and South, we should be providing wonderful air-raid shelters all along the whole of those routes and at the same time achieving what I believe, is the only possible solution of the London traffic problem. I have heard it stated by an expert whose opinion is entitled to attention that the delays in London traffic are costing the public between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000 a year. While the cost of constructing these underground roads would be very great, we should at once get the advantage in peace time and be able to get a good dividend on that capital expenditure. Therefore, I hope very much that the Lord Privy Seal, after he has considered the immediate problem,

will give attention to the question of whether underground roadways in London could not be of combined assistance both to the solution of the A.R.P. problem and the solution of the traffic problem.

4.34 P.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The matters which have been raised in the two preceding speeches arrange themselves naturally under two heads. In the first place, the possibility of carrying out the work which is necessary through the agency of local authorities has been challenged. In the second place, both speakers have devoted a substantial part of their speeches to a consideration of the merits of the kind of shelters that were described in my statement yesterday as compared with the merits of what are called bomb-proof shelters.
I propose to deal first with the question of local authorities. Let me say at once that if I have to be criticised in this House, as I know I shall be, I do not wish for anyone to criticise in terms more courteous and considerate than those employed by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). Let me try in the short lime available to correct what I think is a prevalent misapprehension in regard to the financial relationship established between local authorities and the Central Government under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. It is often suggested that under that financial arrangement there is placed upon local authorities a burden which is much too onerous for them to bear. I agree at once that the scope, magnitude and urgency of a complete shelter policy would present local authorities in general, if they were left unaided or not aided beyond the limits of the contribution automatically provided under the Statute, with a task which might well have appalled the most stouthearted of them. One of the satisfactory features of the scheme which I had the honour of announcing to the House yesterday was that it does relieve local authorities of a very substantial portion of that burden, not only of expense but of responsibility.
What of the responsibilities that remain upon the shoulders of the local authorities in connection with the provision of shelters? It is part of the law of the land that local authorities should include in their air-raid precautions schemes arrangements for the provision of shelter for the


protection of the public as far as may be necessary; and I am bound to say that I have not in contemplation any substantial change in the provisions of the law in that respect, subject to what I said yesterday as to the transference to the Government of the entire responsibility for the provision of splinter- and blast-proof shelters for the poorer section of the population, as far as they have to be protected, in or near their own homes. That arrangement leaves on the shoulders of the local authorities the responsibility that has rested on them since the Act was passed for providing what I may call communal shelters. In the discharge of that responsibility the Government have undertaken to provide local authorities not only with expert assistance, but with the greatest possible guidance—and, may I say parenthetically, I fully realise that the assistance to be afforded to local authorities in that respect will have to be greatly extended, and we hope to enlist in aid of our efforts in this direction the services of the professional organisations to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) referred yesterday.
As regards financial contribution, the normal grant which is paid automatically to local authorities in respect of approved schemes ranges from 60 to 75 per cent. according to the grading of the local authority, and they are graded according to their financial resources. But the Act further provides that, if the expenditure falling upon local rates, after allowing for Government grant, exceeds the product of a penny rate, a penny rate representing the new expenditure falling on the funds of the local authorities, the excess expenditure over the product of a penny rate attracts a higher rate of grant, so that in the case of the poorer authorities the rate of grant can be as high as 85 per cent. That is about the most liberal rate of grant that you can find anywhere in our system of local government.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford made one false assumption when he talked about the utter impossibility of local authorities facing the expenditure involved. He compared the scale of expenditure which might be required with the estimated product of a penny rate, and said that it was self-evident that they could not possibly meet such a burden.

It is not the fact that the local authorities' share of the expenditure on the provision of shelters has to be met out of revenue. The Exchequer contribution is provided in a lump sum immediately but, so far as the local authorities' share is concerned, there is no reason why they should not raise the necessary funds by borrowing, and so spread the burden over a term of years. That is a matter for their consideration. Moreover, Section 10 of the Act provides that before the expiration of three years from the passing of the Act a review of the financial working of the Act is to be made, in consultation with associations of local authorities. I do not at present consider that there is any reason why local authorities, if provided with the requisite assistance and guidance, and with the technical services and advice that can be made available by calling upon the reserves of good will of the great professional associations of the country, should not be able to attack this problem efficiently.
In this matter a question of principle is involved, a very far-reaching question of principle. If it were accepted that because these arrangements come under the heading of Defence, they must be regarded as the responsibility of the State, and of the State alone, that would carry us very far indeed, and I doubt whether the acceptance of that principle would operate in the public interest. It is not only local authorities that are concerned; there are the public utilities, the great businesses and industries, and there is the responsibility of the private person. That subject was raised this afternoon in a supplementary question. What about the provision for domestic servants? If you accepted the principle that because this is Defence the whole cost must fall upon the general taxpayer, and that the employers must be relieved, where is it to end? The principle carries us further than that. I hope the hon. Member will not think that I am adopting a purely contentious attitude.

Mr. A. Henderson: I take it the right hon. Gentleman is referring to public shelters.

Sir J. Anderson: I am talking now of public shelters. The provision of private shelters in the case of people who cannot reasonably be expected to make provision


for themselves will be undertaken at the cost of the State. Now I come to deal with the more limited, and more manageable, problem of the provision of public shelters, what I call communal shelters. That responsibility rests with the local authority, and that is where it should rest. This is a matter in which you wish to engage not only local interest but local responsibility. The arrangements that will have to be made must be adapted to the particular requirements of the locality, and those who know the locality and are in touch with the people of the locality ought to be taken into active partnership—partnership to carry out the work, and a financial partnership also.
If we are to do what is best for the country as a whole, we must distinguish between area and area. We must have some rough and ready system of grading areas according to their degree of vulnerability. What would be the position if the whole burden were taken by the Exchequer? There is no area which one can say is absolutely immune from attack from the air. If local authorities were only interested in pressing, as they would press, for the maximum provision in their own locality, and were not subjected at all to the restraining influence of having to meet a portion of the cost—although that influence is greatly diluted by the financial arrangements that I have described—would not the position be this? The Government would be pressed on every hand to provide 100 per cent. protection for everybody all over the country, whereas what we want to do is to provide as quickly as possible the maximum degree of protection for those areas which require it most. We suggest that that is a consideration which ought to be given due weight.
May I turn to the other question which has been raised in this Debate? A good deal has been said about the merits of deep bomb-proof shelters, as contrasted with the type of shelter which I described in my statement of yesterday. Reference has been made to the experience of Barcelona. I should like to add just one word of caution there. What Barcelona has suffered by air raids is quite trivial by comparison with what might happen in this country if we were ever, unfortunately, engaged in a major war. I say frankly I do not know how far the protection provided in Barcelona can fairly

be described as actually protection against direct hits by heavy high-explosive bombs. I think it was the hon. Member for Kingswinford who referred to shelter being provided—not I think the deepest shelter; by tunnels 40 feet deep—for numbers of people ranging from 700 to 7,000. Those are very large numbers. If such shelters are provided on that scale, those who have to go into them must be drawn from quite a considerable area, even in the most congested districts. If air-raid warning is short, and the intensity of the attack is great, the danger of casualties on an enormous scale being inflicted while they are streaming through the streets to get to those shelters, must not be underestimated; and if in fact these shelters are not, as has been suggested, fully bomb-proof, the exploding of a bomb in one of them would create horrible casualties.
Though what I was describing to the House yesterday was only a short-term policy, the best that we think can be provided, and though I tried to make it clear in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that I had not excluded, and I do not by any means exclude, further consideration of a long-term policy in this matter, I say that we have quite deliberately gone in for a policy of giving protection to the people of the congested districts in small shelters. I will say further, on the question of deep-bomb proof shelters, that I do not want to be taken as expressing a final view on the matter. There are certain further considerations, quite apart from expense, which is admitted, and delay, which is also admitted, which will have to be kept in view. One is the considerable difficulty of providing really adequate approaches and exits from these shelters, approaches and exits that would be adequate in conditions, not of the sort of bombardments suffered in Barcelona, but of intense bomb-attack.
There is the further consideration—although I do not want to exaggerate it—that, in so far as stress has been laid on the importance of providing deep bomb-proof shelters for the inhabitants of the most vulnerable areas—the docks have been cited—in view of the fact that the attack might be concentrated, at any rate, initially on those areas, it might prove that the only effective solution was evacuation of the people from those areas. In that case, the deep bomb-proof shelters


would go out of use straight away, and all the time and effort and all the hopes that had rested on that particular form of protection would go to waste. The smaller and more modest type of shelter which the Government have decided to provide, under the scheme that I announced yesterday, would have two advantages in that connection. The first is that it would be movable, and the second is that, having once been placed in position—and I want to make it clear that as soon as it is placed in position it does, in the opinion of the engineers who have been consulted, provide a very substantial degree of protection—it could rapidly be further strengthened, not merely by the piling of earth on it, but it could be encased in cement—a word which may perhaps bring comfort to my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). That type of shelter has those two advantages, and many other advantages, although I have not time to go fully into them now.
There remain one or two points that were made in the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot. He rather complained that we had gone, if I may so put it, all out for steel, and had concerned ourselves with the problem of unemployment in the steel industry, and that we had ignored cement. My Noble Friend says that there is plenty of cement, and that there is also unemployment in connection with the production of cement. I would point out that one cannot just take bags of cement, wave a wand over them, and produce shelters. If one is to make shelters out of cement, with reinforced concrete, one has to make surveys, one has to ensure that the sites of those shelters are the most suitable, and then one has to proceed to bring them into existence. All that must take a long time, even though the supplies of cement may be ample. Having decided on what one thinks is the best site for a concrete shelter, one is finally committed. If one comes to the conclusion that one would like more complete information—and we are constantly getting information which leads us to change our conception of the scope and magnitude of the problem—one cannot shift the shelter and quickly put it up somewhere else, as one can with a steel shelter.
But I do not wish for one moment to give the House the impression that con-

crete shelters are ruled out. I said in my statement yesterday that there was no single solution of this problem, and when the report of the engineers, which I promised yesterday, is available, I think the Noble Lord will obtain considerable comfort from what it contains. It classifies the different kinds of shelters that should be provided, it stresses the importance of employing to the fullest extent all the resources available in the provision of shelters; and the Noble Lord will see that a certain type of concrete shelter is given, not the highest priority, but fairly high priority in the final conclusions of the engineers.
A word was said, I think by the Noble Lord, about the experience of Barcelona in regard to the use of steel for the protection of cellars. The Noble Lord suggested that experience showed that no sort of protection was found to be given by that method and that the use of steel, as a material for the protection of cellars, had been abandoned in Barcelona. I do not know how far the abandonment of steel for that purpose in Barcelona may have been due to the fact that steel in sufficient quantities ceased, at an early stage, to be available. I have before me a book which, I know, has been widely read and on which, I believe, hon. Members have to some extent based their views in regard to the merits of different types of protection against bomb attack. In that book I find this passage:
Nevertheless in practice such cellars have saved thousands of lives in Spain.
In the few minutes that remain, may I refer to the observations of the Noble Lord in the concluding part of his speech? He said he hoped that my Department had come to regard air-raid precautions as a permanent feature of our national life. I am rather sorry to say that that is, in fact, the position of my Department in this matter. We are proceeding on the footing that this is not a merely ephemeral activity. I had a conference with the local authorities the other day at the Home Office and I then endeavoured to emphasise the fact that, although their duties in respect of air-raid precautions had been superimposed, by an Act which might have been regarded as an emergency Act, upon their normal duties, it was quite wrong to regard those duties as something extraneous, to be adequately provided for by some


kind of emergency organisation. I ventured to urge them to make adequate provision in their organisation for their various responsibilities in connection with air-raid precautions, to make it a normal part of their organisational equipment.
Then, my Noble Friend said he hoped that I did not regard myself as working in a watertight compartment. I think I have said to the House before that my position in regard to civil Defence is, if not anomalous, at any rate somewhat novel. While I have under my direct control a department of the Home Office and a considerable staff, I am also responsible for many matters which have to be dealt with by other Departments which have their own Ministers. I hope I have been able to establish proper relations with those other Departments con-

cerned in civil Defence, which will ensure harmonious and co-ordinated working. I would refer in one sentence to a particular point of my Noble Friend in his closing observations, namely, the possible influence on traffic problems of considerations of civil Defence. May I say that I had, more than three weeks ago, a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in which I emphasised the very point which my hon. Friend has raised.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordinly at One Minute before Five of the Clock until Tuesday, 31st January, 1939, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.